As if his sordid remark about the Prime Minister was not enough, the responses to Alan Jones left a lot to be desired. Barrie Cassidy reflects on the mainstream and social media warfare.

Monitoring the national Alan Jones debate reminds me of a scene from Monty Python's The Meaning of Life, when the conversation at a restaurant so stupefies a diner that he shouts out: "Oh, waiter. This conversation isn't very good."

The diner would have said of this one: It's bloody awful. Tasteless. Take it back!

First, the reporting inevitably meant the public had to endure dozens of replays of the sordid remark.

And then the politicians and the political partisans in the media really went to work.

Just in case you were living under a rock and missed it - or were simply incapable of feeling anything as a result - the Labor ministers charged in one after another telling you exactly how outraged you ought to be. And that Tony Abbott, well Tony Abbott...

That over the top reaction simply served to unleash a torrent of material from offenders on all sides, causing the initial anger and astonishment to be diluted by politics.

And then the partisans, the letter writers and the right wing columnists chimed in with remarkably similar analysis that usually started something like this: Alan Jones's comments were appalling, cruel and insensitive… You could see the BUT coming from a mile away.

A dozen words of condemnation and then hundreds more arguing the other mob are just as bad or worse.

Never a backward step in politics; never the option of accepting that just this once a fellow traveller disgraced himself, so better to shrug the shoulders and walk away.

Then as the week progressed, social media went to work pressuring advertisers to inflict a big penalty on Jones. Gerry Harvey called them the "lynch mob" but then again, if he really felt that way, why did he join them?

And overlaying all of this was open warfare in and between media organisations.

News Ltd attacked Fairfax for stealing their story; Mark Latham got stuck into Paul Kelly on Sky's Australian Agenda; Peter van Onselen ripped into Jones supporter Michael Kroger elsewhere on the same network; and Laurie Oakes had a shot at another Jones supporter, Karl Stefanovic on the Nine Network

All of this was thanks to the work of a New Zealand-born journalist described in the Sydney Morning Herald as having a "Chaser-like knack of skirting the rules in search of the bigger picture" and who, over the years "has been comprehensively done over in the New Zealand media."

Labor's attempts to screw Abbott by association was ham-fisted; about as ham-fisted as Abbott's attempts on Thursday to link Julia Gillard to Michael Williamson within hours of the former union leader being arrested.

Then in the same doorstop, he described Speaker Peter Slipper as a "creature" of Julia Gillard. You would have thought, maybe not the best week to use such a disparaging remark.

Alan Jones is close to Abbott. He has been master of ceremonies at some of the Liberal Party's biggest events. He has tried and failed to win pre-selection for the Liberal Party. All known, and all factored in by a public that gets it. It didn't have to be dragged into the conversation with all the subtlety of a sledgehammer.

Abbott's limited liability in the whole matter is that he too, quite publicly and all too often, accuses the Prime Minister of being a liar. It's the kind of political discourse that just a few years ago would not have been tolerated, no matter the circumstances.

Finally, on the other big theme this week - hypocrisy.

Two weeks ago a very worthy publication hit my desk. It was titled - A Switch in Time - restoring respect to Australian politics. Much of it made a lot of sense, railing against the very public promotion of violent images in politics and giving numerous examples of the trashing of the public debate.

It was published by the Victorian Women's Trust, an organisation that has been urging a fairer go for women and girls since the 1980s. It spoke of "an unprecedented level of abusive language and misogynistic attitudes that fly in the face of personal accountability and a basic civility."

And then I checked out the September issue of their magazine - Sheilas - to discover the feature columnist was Catherine Deveny. It described her as redoubtable (formidable; worthy of respect or honour). It is hardly necessary to go through the long list of "abusive language" attributed to Deveny over the years. All week, that has been well documented.

Suffice to record she tweeted in June of her former editor, Paul Ramadge: "I wish him arse cancer." I concede she has been a regular across ABC platforms.

The Trust is to be commended for demanding "a debate with tolerance," and for everybody to accept a role in changing "the tone, quality and focus of the current political debate."

Lord Lucan:

05 Oct 2012 9:26:01am

Fairly one eyed view there from a supporter of a party which has spent the past two years in the gutter. Your comment just indicates even more that the right side of politics has no policies and always resorts to personal abuse. The ABC displays comments from both sides, as opposed to the Murdoch press which heavily censors its blog comments to favour the right. Read the story this morning from Margaret Abbott about Saint Tony, the comments are vomit inducing.

JohnM:

05 Oct 2012 10:49:33am

The time to announce policies is just before an election. In case you've forgotten, the last time that the Coalition announced its policy prior to Labor, labor promptly stole it.

You seem to think that the media should not give greater priority to holding the government up to scrutiny than trawling the bottom for comments by anyone who can somehow be linked to the Opposition. I just don't find your position tenable.

I am also amazed that you should scorn a wife for publicly supporting her husband. I dare say that she knows her husband far better than the limited knowledge on which you form your judgement of him.

Gregory T:

05 Oct 2012 11:33:53am

You know, I hear this about policies only being released just prior to an election and for the life of me I can't understand why, when the opposition is demanding an election now, they would not release their policies, if they are really serious.

burke:

Lord Lucan:

05 Oct 2012 11:37:05am

The concept that policies should only be announced prior to an election is preposterous. How do you vote for someone without policies? Secondly holding the government to account doesn't involve telling lies about the carbon tax, foreign det etch. It's supposed to be providing an alternative. Dragging Abbott's wife out to support him is a desperate measure by someone in trouble. He should be worrying about a knife in the back, not Labor. This is an attempt to bolster his credibility within his own party. So far we've heard that the coalition will dismantle everything not screwed down. What are they going to do that's positive? By the way. Why did Tony Abbott say in the U.S that our economy is one of the strongest in the world but at home we're on a par with Spain. Funny about that.

Mr Zeitgest:

05 Oct 2012 12:22:13pm

"I am also amazed that you should scorn a wife for publicly supporting her husband. I dare say that she knows her husband far better than the limited knowledge"

Bringing your spouse as a human shield onto the political stage is cowardice of the highest order. This was obviously decided after gruelling backroom meetings as to how improve womens' perception of Abbott; yeah, wheel out the missuss...

Yes, of course 'she knows her husband far better etc.." but this has got to be the cheapest political stunt, even by Abbott's standards and doesn't in any way mitigate his attitude to women in the electorate of Ms Gillard herself.

sencit:

05 Oct 2012 2:14:06pm

And no doubt you know the real reason, IT'S a conspiracy. Do you ever consider it could just be possible that a politicians wife might want to set records straight. I could be wrong, but your odds are the same as mine 50/50. You lot are pathetic, I don't like Tony Abbott any more that Julia Gillard, although he is more polite the she is.The article was more about the comment made by A.Jones. He was simply wrong to have linked the death of J.Gillard's father to her behaviour. A.Jones had sunk to gutter level comments in the past that was way below that.

Maura:

05 Oct 2012 4:01:00pm

I wonder if Tim Mathieson had come out to defend Julia Gillard against the constant attacks on her by Tony Abbott who calls her a liar at every opportunity or the numerous offensive comments from the despicable Mr Jones and the questioning of her integrity by the curmudgeon Paul Kelly, would he have been given a front page and huge spread in News Ltd papers as well as endless hours of coverage by Sky News, I think the answer would be a resounding No!

Mrs Abbott is perfectly entitled to defend her husband, after all American political wives have to do it all the time, there was even a TV show about The Good Wife standing by her political man with gritted teth. But if you choose to act like a thug every day in Question Time, showing complete disrespect for a female PM by constantly referring to her as "she" calling a woman who beat you in the past Chairthing, people could be forgiven for thinking you might have been able stomach a hung parliament a lot better if the person who beat you to the top job was a man.

Bullies never like to be confronted with their behaviour and Tony Abbott and Alan Jones have gone to great lengths this week, ably assisted by their media mates, to convince us that they are really the victims (I'm sure many women will be familiar with this tactic). Can't wait for the next episode of The Tony I Know show.

Andie:

h:

05 Oct 2012 5:51:21pm

If Tim Mathieson did such a piece it would be on the front page - however it would be roundly condemed asnothing more but cheap politics - just as Mrs Abbott's story should be.

Yes, better manners would mean the PM is referred to by her title, and maybe it does gall Abbott to refer to a woman by her proper title. but he does do it correctly plenty of times, and Labor certainly do refer to Abbott as "he" quite often as well. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

This week's Gruen Planet segment on Jones was very good, showed Jones up as ever the opportunist.

Jude:

05 Oct 2012 6:40:37pm

Well said. If the PM was currently a man even Alan Jones and Tony Abbott would have put their slithery arm(s) around his shoulder and expressed sympathy, sincerely - for a moment. The attacks on Julia Gillard are misogynistic, pure and simple. So glad she retains her dignity and clarity about why she is in the job, it must be hard to stay focussed grieving for her father and being PM - not asking for any 'special' treatment here just common courtesy and respect.

burke:

TechinBris:

05 Oct 2012 12:26:37pm

?The time to announce policies is just before an election. In case you've forgotten, the last time that the Coalition announced its policy prior to Labor, labor promptly stole it.?But did anyone actually keep to their promises? Both the Coalition and Labor have proven it is a matter of convenience and nothing to do with any form of honesty to the electorate. Make up any old excuse. Who can prove otherwise? Or if they do keep the promise, it gets rehashed to fit their dogma which ends up being nothing like they ?promised? it would be.Why bother with the policies? They?ve been given before. Just actually go back and look at who actually delivered as it was said to be and you have the answer.Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me thrice???.

jerrybrookman:

05 Oct 2012 3:21:30pm

johnM,do you seriously believe that Tony Abbott's wife (who is on the record saying she has no interest in politics at all)just decided to take time off work to organise a press conference,photo ops and the media handouts to support him all by herself? Of coarse it's just an amazing coincidence that Murdoch's newspoll is being taken at this time.

Stuffed Olive:

05 Oct 2012 4:04:59pm

Trouble is that Mrs Abbott said more than just 'I support and love my husband' etc, e.g. Of course the fact they are all Liberals makes no difference. Tony loves Liberal voting women. A Labor voting woman, let alone a female Labor MP, always gets his scorn and misognist remarks. I think he regards Labor women to be a separate species!

buttercup:

05 Oct 2012 5:15:39pm

It was only about 2 weeks ago that I mentioned that nobody had seen Mrs. Abbott and I wondered why. Now I know. Barnaby Joyce, Christopher (vomitus) Pyne and others had spoken up for "poor Tony" and now Mrs. Abbott has too.

Is there anything Tony Abbott can say for himself? Why does he have to have this group speak for him when he is on the back foot? What would anybody expect Mrs. Abbott to say in her husbands defence other than nice things?

Hells bells people, get over the fact that Tony Abbott is not perfect and let him speak for himself! That way we will see the "real Tony" and can judge for ourselves what are lies and what are not.Stop treating the general public as fools and let Tony Abbott put his own foot in his own mouth.........and take the consequences for it.

Tony Abbott likes Liberal women, he hates anything to do with Labor and thinks we all cant tell the difference. Come on Tony, fess up, you pander to Liberal women because you use them to make you look good. Silly people.

Pegaso:

05 Oct 2012 2:23:25pm

US author,Joe Bageant,in his book "Deer Hunting with Jesus",comments,"they are so far right they will never eat the left wing of a chicken".Seems quite apt for people like Jones and his followers. The ABC is scrupulous in being unbiased, they are not responsible for the fact that the Conservative side of politics, here and in the US, seems to attract the weirdos, crazies.Fortunately with people like Malcolm Turnbull in their ranks there is some hope that Liberals can return to a more intelligent constructive party.

Rusty:

Telling You:

05 Oct 2012 4:07:40pm

Lord Lucan - well saidMargaret Abbott is Tony Abbott's wife and hence is most probably in the scheme of things his biggest supporter. I'm not about to get grubby about the Abbott household and Abbotts association of the fact that he had sisters and now has daughters but the question remains - What really goes on in the Abbott household? It appears so tight and so well orchestrated that I fear the Australian public will never really know. So when Tony wheels out Margaret it is nothing more than a political distraction from the facts and an attempted dilution of the common sense of the majority of Australians. Especially women. Margaret is Tony's wife. She is not by any stretch of the imagination non partisan. Now if we were given a respectable example of a non partisan female public figure coming forward who has absolutely no allegiance to the Coalition then that might score some points for Saint Abbott.

I did not read the story in the Murdoch press as I refuse to part with money for one sided slanted right wing nonsense.

Creme brulee:

05 Oct 2012 9:29:55am

Classic, Simon. Did you read Barrie's article where he points out the sleazy nature of scoring the lowest political points by linking individuals with politicians, using as an example the linking of Williamson with the Prime Minister.

But since you asked, perhaps you can tell me how many times the Prime Minister has extolled the virtues of Mr Williamson compared to how many times the Opposition Leader in recent months has supported and appeared on the same platform and show as Mr Jones.

RobP:

05 Oct 2012 2:45:21pm

I actually think it quite interesting that no sooner than the ALP try to publicly link Abbott with Alan Jones in the latter's time of woe, the public focus immediately switches to Michael Williamson and the fact that he was a former high-ranking ALP party wheeler and dealer. It just gives further credence to Karl Jung's idea of synchronicity if you ask me.

Stuffed Olive:

05 Oct 2012 10:51:22am

That was on all ABC news yesterday and last night, on the web, on the TV and on the radio. Do you just pop in to make comments here and not know that your comment is wrong as evidenced by the facts. Might make you feel smug but it will get you nowhere telling lies here. Go to Bolt's column and spread your lies there where you will be in good company.

Rusty:

the working man:

05 Oct 2012 4:13:35pm

Rusty, I am more than happy to go through every policy reform implemented by the greatest reforming PM and all in just over twoyears. In that time all Abbott has done is repeated, NO over and over.Now the cheese and kisses has to rescue him, that softy who tears upwatching soapies.

h:

05 Oct 2012 6:04:15pm

No admissible evidence?

Only everytime he opens his mouth in front of a camera! (the first time, not the second/third/fourth/etc times when his spin team have public opinion in on is first thought, and then tightly script him for the "right" thing to say - even if it conradicts that first thought).

realist:

05 Oct 2012 5:23:27pm

So why did Gillard and the ALP attempt to publicly smear James Ashby? That case was before the courts yet the A G herself stepped to comment, Gillard had a go yet when its one of their own they say " cannot comment on that, its before the courts". Once again it something both sides do and need to stop, perhaps a contempt of court charge would shut them, however you appear to believe that the ALP never do it, you need to follow a bit more carefully before condemning one side and not the other.

Pegaso:

Barj:

05 Oct 2012 2:58:03pm

I should hope the ABC and everyone else will refrain from commenting on subjects that are BEFORE THE COURT. I sincerely hope you are the only one with no respect for the law. But in doing so I do realize that I am probably being too optimistic.

mick:

If you think his career is over, you probably believe there will be a landslide victory at the ALP next federal election

The low point of this whole thing, has been all the hangers on and opportunists who have come out to put the boot in and profess their outrage.

What a bunch of hypocrites.

Is it any wonder we are treated like a joke internationally.

Seriously, look at the behavior over the last week

BTW - If that had been John Howard, or Tony Abbott who had been insulted that way, they would have taken the call and ended the whole thing because they are bigger than Gillard who plays every move from political expediency, not from a moral or principled base.

It's why she is weak, she has no personality, and daily is just the reflection of media management.

The way Abbott handled that piece of crap from Channel 7 who fiddled the video to make it look like he was insulting dead soldiers shows what backbone he has - Gillard would have been in hysterics, as she usually is when things get personal

Scotus:

05 Oct 2012 9:07:21am

This post shows the problem. No argument, just one diatribe after another topped off by a wholly hypothetical claim about Abbott and Howard. In other words, partisan jibe on jibe, no civility let alone a rational contribution. We have met the enemy and he is us.

mick:

PMs' "do" take calls - they do not sit in ivory towers too good to speak to the populace

If it had been John Howard refusing to accept an apology - what would you have said?

Julia is brittle, great at handing it out, can't take it

"vomit that spews from the mouth of a sock jock" (Shock, calm down, do spell check?)

Sydney people love him, he is the highest listened to radio announcer in the country, companies flock to advertise on his show - they might all stop for a while, but commerce will overcome their temporary moral stance.

Alan, is the favorite of many Sydney people, the left hate him but so what.

I don't listen to him, can't stand him actually, but he is what he is and you can't stop it by spraying your own bile everywhere as the left apparently think they can do.

kazann:

Algernon:

05 Oct 2012 11:03:35am

Thanks mick for those wonderful ad hominem comments.

I suspect John Howard when PM would not have dignified the comments made by Jones by accepting his call either.

Sydney people do not "love" him, It would expect you to believe that. It has a listening audience of around 175000 in a city of nearly 5 million. Those that listen to him are nearly all over the age of 55.

Do you really think the PM is just waiting around to take a call from "Alan Jones", who on earth does he think he is!

Philby:

05 Oct 2012 5:01:17pm

Algeron I agree with you. this is the same guy who thinks he is so important that the PM's 5 minutes lateness is a disgrace. As if her whole day is timed just so she can make it to his show on time. That same guy.

Spinning Topsy:

05 Oct 2012 11:27:18am

Well, either *Sydney people love him* or as Christopher Pyne opined - nobody cares what he says. Wrong on both counts in my view - Sydney *people* don't love him - at least this one doesn't - and I care what he says because invariably it lacks decency, causes harm and incites violence. In a civilized society that is totally unacceptable and for the Liberal Party to continue to provide this execrable person with a platform and legitimacy does nothing to recommend it as the alternative government of this country.

Scotty A:

05 Oct 2012 12:10:07pm

Mick, it was the PM's father. Maybe she didnt want to give the story legs. Her father has just died. Why does no one seem to get that? Its not a story book. The PM (and in fact anyone) is entitled to deal with a sensitive personal matter like this in any way they choose.

persep:

Stuffed Olive:

05 Oct 2012 2:47:06pm

Rubbish. Still far better we fly the PM home than foot the bill for Howard to see the Ashes in England, often. Honestly the depths you and yours will go to to argue one of your idiotic irrelevant points.

Telling You:

05 Oct 2012 4:42:36pm

Great comment Hugo Furst. Julia Gillard is Australia's elected Prime Minister. Exactly what other form of transportation do you propose for an elected Australian PM. Shallow tripe to try and link the fact that the Australian Air Force actually flew her back and that this constitutes a breach of Australian taxpayers.

Please tell us how Australian PM's should travel and how we the Australian taxpayers should hound them into submission if the said Prime Minister (Labor or Coalition) if someone in their immediate family suddenly dies and whoa the taxpayers demand that the PM should of bought a ticket on a commercial airline and gone through the very well established travel links to Australia from a place like maybe Vladivostok.

Perhaps Hugo you could outline how easy it is to travel form Vladivostok to Adelaide to attend the funeral of your late father.

Pegaso:

05 Oct 2012 2:44:05pm

" Sydney people love him".Id suspect and hope that only SOME people feel that way.Its a sad commentary on the intelligence and education level reached by that group.Perhaps thats why Conservative Govts reduce spending on education, keep them gullible and they will swallow anything you say.No wonder Abbott says he wants to go back on Jones' program to speak to the million or so who listen.You find similar situations in the US surrounding the extreme right of the Republican Party

the working man:

05 Oct 2012 2:45:31pm

Mick, straight out of the Abbott hand book. The PM brittle and weak. Giveme a break while you rave on. The PM negotiated government after a hungparliament. The words of Tony Windsor are worth repeating at this moment,he said Abbott could not have handle the parliament with his temperament.Against the nasty, vile, negative destroy mission of Abbott and his head kickersthe PM has passed many great reforms, paid parental leave, NBN, mining tax,Carbon trading etc. All these reforms passed in a parliament where Abbot hashad a destroy at any cost mentality.

Pedro 2000:

RobW:

05 Oct 2012 3:37:01pm

"Sydney people love him"

Maybe, but none of that changes that fact that his behaviour over the years has been pretty substandard. Just because someone (or something) is popular it doesn't automatically mean they should be supported or legitimized by politicans or the broader community. Frankly I think there are better things she could do with her limited time. For example, I very rarely hear her speak to ABC's AM, PM or RN drive programs, not that I'm complaining, I'm not her biggest fan, but I'm more likely to vote for her than one of Alan's listeners. Frankly I'm sick of politicans pandering to specific parts of the electorate at the expense of the rest of us. It results in bad policies (from both sides of politics) and a distorted discourse. There is more to Australia than NSW.

h:

05 Oct 2012 6:14:40pm

She is still grieving for her father and Jones is caught trashing his memory in public (tickets were publicly available, hence it is a public event). This is the same man that has advocated her death by drowning repeatedly. Did you even listen to his media event afterwards? He couldn't even say sorry, yet went on incessantly about all the things he believes she has done wrong. He didn't even have the guts to take ownership of the comment, trying to lay blame on someone at a family event.

And you expect she demean herself to take his call and listen to his fake apology?

Jones thinks he is the Aust equivalent of the Godfather- trouble is, Howard and Abbott think so too.

JohnM:

05 Oct 2012 10:52:46am

It's very likely Labor's imported spin doctor who told her not to.

From what I've read this new spin doctor has scant regard for either civility or the truth and his slogan is "Whatever it takes". I wonder if the failure and voter rejection of Labor in the UK should be blamed on him.

Aja:

05 Oct 2012 5:19:58pm

Somebody told her not to? You need a reality check. The Prime Minister doesnt need anybody to tell her what to say, sheis an articulate, well educated person who made a choice to deny Alan Jones any more time to "apologise" to her and herfamily. I applaud her choice.

Ozbunyipy:

05 Oct 2012 9:19:54am

Gonna need some facts to back up your dive into dreamland, any person that had insulted any person parent at time so close to their departing is a shallow human only out done by those that try and defend him. There is no chance nor would you deserve forgiveness for such a callous insensitive remark. Gillard took the high ground and rightly chose to ignore him, Howard and Abbott wouldn't find the high ground with a ladder. We have been one of the best performing economies during the GFC and who's laughing? The PIIGS? Europe? USA? Now that would be a oxymoron.Got some proof the video was manipulated? A fact or two to support your claim? Other than your one eyed guess?

Abbott has such a back bone he,s stared like a stunned mullet, punched walls, lied, talked this country down, makes his own assertions void of the produced facts, ie..China continually changes his stance on topics faster than a weather vain, stood up and takes all questions unfettered? If that is your idea of a man with backbone, then ill take Gillard every time.

kazann:

Stuffed Olive:

Pedro 2000:

05 Oct 2012 2:14:09pm

Andie. I repeat.

Name one honest factually correct thing that Abbott has said in the last 3 months?Something that is factually honest:Not a lie by omission.Not just his subjective opinion.Not a Straw Man argument Not a distortion using sneaky language, weasel words or semantics.Just one honest, objective or factually correct thing. What have you got?

Macca:

05 Oct 2012 10:53:41am

The so called GFC as you stated, Europe, USA and so on.Meanwhile the other side have progressed Asia, South America and parts of Africa showing signs. We are in this side of it.We have been part of the rise, we had little choice we were hitched to the wagon.An abundance of natural resources with in a stones throw of the plant. The rewards have been obvious.The test will be if the wagon slows to a halt, will we have enough in reserve to keep us driving, I think not.Ok, the house has been insulated and a clean lick of paint on the old school but what's in the Bank, what's in the food closet.?Alan Jones is not short on intelligence, but lacks many skills that help to deliver a representation of it.

Julia will gain from the comments, this is Politics and she is a professional.

The ham in this sandwich are us the public, are we being played and manipulated again, I think so.

Kate Emerson:

05 Oct 2012 9:22:34am

Gillard stood and took questions from journalists over the allegations from 17 years ago until there were no more questions. Abbott could not answer one of Leigh Sales. Talk of backbone and there is your answer.

DaisyMay:

Pedro 2000:

Kate Emerson:

05 Oct 2012 11:35:35am

Leigh Sales has never been hysterical in her life and as for Tanner-well, he is making money from a book. It's what people do. What written questions are you talking about? It's you who sound a bit hysterical custard.

Kate Emerson:

05 Oct 2012 6:30:14pm

The Australian? The Rupert Murdoch owned Australian? The one edited by the far-Right Chris Mitchell? That Australian? Why does she owe them any explanations? They almost destroyed Bob Brown and Robert Manne with lies and innuendos-they deserve nothing.

the working man:

05 Oct 2012 2:52:19pm

Custard has been listening to Abbott and Jones too long. Just rantand rave, the red necks have been given free rein by Abbott to badmouth anyone. Custard, stop and observe what reforms have passedthrough parliament in just over two years.

serifont:

05 Oct 2012 5:38:52pm

Fortnightly Newspoll is trending... no further interest in a Labor trend as the truth in the matter is that media seeks to influence using these polls. Denis Shanahan mentions.... sex.... ooohhh....Labor still has not secured the required seats to win at the next election...The Others still remain as the most competitive third party if an election was held on the week end.

Stuffed Olive:

Rebecca:

05 Oct 2012 9:23:50am

I defy you to produce even a single example of Gillard being "in hysterics" at a personal remark. As her behaviour this week has demonstrated, as it has on every other one of the many, many occasions that people have made offensive personal remarks, she has been completely calm, dignified and totally unresponsive to that kind of pettiness.

Andie:

05 Oct 2012 10:30:58am

Gillard this week has allowed her ministers and female attack dogs to be out there giving oxygen to this topic which we all agree was hurtful.

If Gillard wanted to end the hurt she just had to shut up her senior ministers whose rants prolonged the discussion by days. Gillard appears to have not wanted to end the continual repetition of the comments in the media for base political purposes.

Stuffed Olive:

05 Oct 2012 11:09:34am

No base political purposes involved in this issue. You are so far off and off the mark. The fact that others are getting stuck into Jones is good because the left has always been too bloody polite when dealing with that excuse for a human being Jones.

Andie:

05 Oct 2012 2:08:33pm

I have absolutely no argument with jones being attacked by everyone for his repugnant comments.

I was referring to the fact that the ALP decided to use it do their usual baseless attacks on Abbott. Those attempts to link Jones to Abbott and blame Abbott for what Jones said immediately revealed their base political motives.

Tom1:

05 Oct 2012 3:24:56pm

Andie: By "baseless" I presume you mean, no truth in fact. Abbott and Jones are not good friends. Abbott never appears on Jones' programme where they both indulge themselves in rubbishing, both the PM and our national Government. Abbott does not call her a "liar" practically every day. Abbott has not stood in front of insulting and obscene signs. etc etc.

JohnM:

OUB :

05 Oct 2012 12:34:02pm

My impression is that Ms Gillard was hysterical in a conversation with the editor of The Australian not so long ago. It is quite possible that the source was Larry Pickering's blog so take that into account. The reasons given were quite personal to the PM and I doubt the moderator would allow them through. I would for once support the moderator on this restriction.

Pun:

Lord Lucan:

05 Oct 2012 9:47:02am

Mick, well done. You win the award for the most biased one eyed comment of the day. Hate to tell you that we're not thought of a joke overseas, we're actually not thought of at all. We're about as internationally significant as Upper Volta. We will be thought of as a joke if Abbott becomes PM though. He's solution of his depth it's not funny and he has hugely talented people behind him like Joe Hockey, Christopher Pyne and Barnaby Joyce. Joke Joyce. If there's hypocrisy here it's on the part of the coalition. They've perpetrated a vicious hate campaign against Gillard for two years but when Abbott is confronted with his past he can't handle it. People who throw stones etc.

OUB :

Realist:

05 Oct 2012 1:43:38pm

I find it fascinating that Lord Lucan has on his posts today had a go at Abbott's wife, there seems to be more than a hint of misogyning in his ranblings. The man has even stolen the name of a British aristocrat, members of which all good lefties would not willing associate with, yet he picks ( identifies with? ) a man who allegedly brutally murdered one of his staff, a woman, and then fled to escape the consequences. The name says it all really. Hypocrite he is indeed.

Lord Lucan:

05 Oct 2012 3:00:24pm

You use the term realist. That's a greater piece of fiction than Lord Lucan. Lord Lucan is a widely accepted colloquialism for someone who has disappeared and is anonymous. Get a life. If you were a realist you would recognise Abbott for what he is. This stunt is a gross attempt to make himself appear human. It ain't fooling anyone, as they say in the classics.

DJRH:

05 Oct 2012 9:58:38am

If a radio shock jock made a quip about my political aptitude at the expense of my dead father, I wouldn't want to take a call about a disingenuous apology either.

Really, the PM has been the only person in this whole debacle who's gone about things the right way. It's everyone else - the media, the LNP, everyone else in Labor, and Jones himself - who keep kicking the dust up when we should just let it settle.

realist:

05 Oct 2012 3:02:19pm

What is was was very clever politics by Gillard. By staying right out of it and lying low for a few days she allowed the saga to continue while the ALP scored points. Jones is an idiot, said the wrong thing as he often does and usually gets away with it. Gillard let senior ALP people step into the fray, which was totally indefensible as Jones is an idiot which is hard to defend at the best of times, Gillard remained the hurt party, which she was/is, however she would have known who was saying what, the ALP spin doctors would have carefully written a script to attack Jones and the Libs, in indefensible position. The result of which was that we had a week of the media staying away from the performance of the Gillard government. Any week that the Gillard government can deflect attention from their abysmal performance is good for them and their standing in the polls. The last thing this government wants is scrutiny.

DJRH:

05 Oct 2012 4:50:50pm

It's probably a bit of both. Politically, it gives Labor a free week of not having any attention on them (though I'd argue that the media's been going more lax on Labor in the months since the carbon tax, but I'm sure pendulum will swing back in the LNP's favor eventually).

In more personal terms and in terms of her character, I'm sure Gillard knows better than to overreact to a man who expects overblown reactions from the people he provokes.

Mark James:

John51:

05 Oct 2012 10:44:22am

Mick, it was interesting how you mentioned nothing about Alan Jones or his comments let alone his apologies that were not apologies. Instead all you did was use this article to continue the personality attack on Julia Gillard while putting Tony Abbott up on a pedestal.

Gillard would have been in hysterics. From that comment I would think you have never seen her perform under what are often intense grilling by those interviewing her. Even though I have no time for Tony Abbott and his politics I would not even make those flawed assumptions about him in such situations.

As for Alan Jones I am complete stumped why he even has an audience. I would not listen to him if I was paid to because he is an insult to anyone?s intelligence in what he says. He plays the role of a shock jock who revels talking from the sewer. It is not even gutter politics. It is politics out of the sewer.

As far as I am concerned any politician that goes on his show is only treating themselves with disrespect. And if they are treating themselves with disrespect they are treating those who vote for them with disrespect. If we are to have a proper debate in this country what we need is for all politicians to avoid all of the shock jocks around the country. All any of them do is to continue to debase any attempt at a sensible debate.

Merlin 23:

05 Oct 2012 11:18:04am

Even a LNP supporter, I respect the PM's right not to take a call from a person who said such a nasty thing. And I don't think you could compare JWH or TA reaction to a similar situation - because its simply hypothetical

Bulldust:

05 Oct 2012 11:22:21am

The hilarious thing is that Barrie Cassidy doesn't understand the basic rule of "Don't feed the trolls." All this column does is propogate what is a very boring conversation, and has nothing to do with improving the country.

So one can come to one of two conclusions:

1) Barrie is ignorant and doesn't understand "Don't feed the trolls" and therefore unintentionally prolonged the debate he claims to dislike.2) He is disingenuously prolonging the debate to point score for the left not realising no one gives a fat rats clacker anymore.

I can't really see an angle that excludes ignorance as the root cause for the blog ... sorry, but it is simply that.

If someone can post another explanation for the original blog that makes sense, then knock yourself out.

Bulldust:

05 Oct 2012 5:56:57pm

If there wasn't a huge audience for Jones he would have no sponsors and no influence. The fact that he does have both (though less sponsors temporarily) illustrates that he speaks for a large portion of the listening public. Personally I have never listened to him, but to suggest he should be "forced into retirement" seems ignorant of several important facets of our society such as freedom of speech, a freeish market etc. All because of one unfortunate comment? Seriously, those calling for his hide need to examine their own "values" if such they hold dear. I shalln't Gdwin the thread by making reference to another group that was keen on censorship.

Maybe ignoring trolls doesn't stop trollish behaviour, but it certainly doesn't fan the flames of their egos. Attacking trolls only encourages them to act up more.

rw:

rw:

05 Oct 2012 4:33:27pm

She is far from weak She has stood up to more abuse than any other PM has had to take, stood firm. Now in the midst of her worst grief she gets attacked by a miserable little man. She took this abuse with great dignity. Whatever happens at the next election, she will have taken a minority Government full term. Whatever you think of her personally, or her politics and policies, that is no mean feat. Julia Gillard may be lots of things, but weak is not one of them

markd:

aelious:

05 Oct 2012 9:19:45am

Wrong the quality of political, social & economic debate DOES MATTER in a democratic nation & the like of Jones DO NOT measure up..they do not inform but merely stir up fear, intolerance & downright hate.But then it is easier to control a fearful mob than an informed thinking citizen body.Jones & his ilk do a job for their ilk & masters & get well paid to boot ...that the ordinary decent citizen has said ENOUGH of this Jones & like crap is a good sign.The sooner the likes of Jones are OFF the media the better our society will be!!!!

Spinning Topsy:

05 Oct 2012 11:33:43am

Totally agree with this post. The rabid shock jocks of the fundamentalist right wing in the US have subverted the democratic process in that country and if we don't stand up to them it will happen here as well.

maj:

05 Oct 2012 1:07:47pm

Expression of ones viewpoint is not 'subverting the democratic process'. Quite the contrary it strenghens it. Be wary of people, like ST, whose solution to freedom of speech censorship and mandatory compliance with their point of view. Perhaps ST would like gulag style re-education centres for people she disagrees with?

Jungle Boy:

I'm sure ST like myself is more than happy to learn alternative viewpoints, provided that they are expressed in a civil manner and without misinformation. For example, without the distortion you have put on ST's post.

Gerd:

05 Oct 2012 9:23:24am

Well, JohnnoH, you will see that some people will not be able to move on; what can they move on to???The Alan Jones ?thing? is of course symptomatic for the ranting on ?that side?: They haven?t got anything else to discuss, really; there is very little lead given by the opposition, they have no policies (except the ?turn the boats around? and a couple of other slogans). We (incl. their supporters) cannot see what exactly they would do in government, we have to rely on guesswork. Therefore, their supporters have to simply ape their politician leaders in finding any kind of fault with the government, a government that has initiated many good things in the last two years or so. So, JohnnoH, what policies or policy differences should people talk about? There IS no alternative that can be discussed! We can only consider one side?s progressive legislation, and cannot weigh these items up against any alternatives. The result is that people ?on the other side? do not know what to say, really, and many such people obviously need to say SOMETHING --- and rather than keeping stumm, they attack the government ?below the belt? (as Alan Jones did, as we saw). Again, too often, the lead to such trash is given by opposition politicians (the people who did not make it into government last time?). And I am pretty sure that C. Pyne will be aped in some of the next posts here and elsewhere. Did he not accuse Kevin Rudd of hypocrisy a couple of days ago, when saying that Rudd, a few years ago, had tried ?hard? to get onto Alan Jones? show? How could this possibly be a sign of hypocrisy? That might have happened two or more years ago, before all that ?water full of bile had flown under the bridge? ? when Alan Jones and other media were less spiteful and so full of hatred. Pyne could simply have disassociated himself from Jones this time; but no, in the absence of anything sensible in the opposition?s policies, he HAD to try to make a political point?(And let's now see, how Shebs, Dave, Andie, Christopher (it might be him after all?) go on and answer with more hate mail!

Andie:

You highlight these supposed good things initiated and we will respond.

Aspirational unfounded policies as the NDIS, Gonski , dental scheme are excluded as they are still aspirational.

You might like to explain to us why the Gillard clowns ar suddenly finding millions of dollars to temporarily fund some schemes being cut by Newman in his responsible efforts to correct the parlous state of QLD finances but could not find the small amount of money Gilard wanted Newman to put up for the NDIS pilot in QLD.

You may not but I strongly object to my taxes being used for rank political purposes . To the above wee could include the $50000 being paid to Ashby as 'go ways money' despite the top law officer in the land continues to say the Commonwealth would have won the case if it went to court.

lazarus:

05 Oct 2012 2:12:14pm

Yes, policies have to be excluded by Andie because Labor has some and the Libs don't want to know anything about them. Poor old sock puppet hasn't learnt that every Government finds a Black Hole when they come into power. Happened when Labor came into power in 1983 and Libs in 1996 and by successive Labor and Lib governments at the state level.

Pedro 2000:

05 Oct 2012 2:34:32pm

andieThat Liberal staffer working for Slipper has cost taxpayers $730 000 + $50 000 so far. For a claim that is about what exactly? Justifiable how exactly?

He did that. He made the claim. He (and Christopher Pyne MP) caused that to happen, not the Govt. The $730 000 was the cost to the Aust Govt to conduct their defence. It was cheaper to pay a $50k settlement to him to stop legal costs etc from exceeding a million plus dollars.

the working man:

05 Oct 2012 3:01:38pm

Andie, for a start to implement policies you have to go through a process to draft policies. Now I no that might be hard for you tounderstand but it happens. If you looked and listened you would also see policies such as the paid parental leave, NBN, carbon trading,Mining tax, national health reform, national curriculum, national OH&S,plain packaging of cigs plus 370 bills have gone through this process.Like Abbott, the right wing have great trouble with these facts but one day when the noise settles you will understand.

Gerd:

05 Oct 2012 3:14:15pm

See, Andie, that is exactly what I meant when I said that you people could only TRASH the government's initiatives and achievements! You cannot come up with ONE thing proposed by the opposition, to be taken into government (whenever that might be...), and that could be evaluated and weighed up against what the government has done, by your clients. (I do hope that sentence was not too long for you...if it was, ring a friend.)That void in policy matters grows larger by the day, and, unfortunately, there does not seem to be anyone in those light-weight opposition ranks (sorry again, Joe...) who can come up with some sort of sensible idea. ('Turning boats around' and sacking public servants do not count, by the way; that would not be SENSIBLE, as, after the Queensland experiment, we now all know.)

DaisyMay:

Strange that you object to the Commonwealth paying out Ashby $50,000 as " go ways money", and infer that the case should continue when the cost so far is in the area of $700,000. and would probably double, for no further benefit to Ashby if it were to continue. I strongly object to my taxes being wasted for rank political purposes.

Shebs:

05 Oct 2012 9:32:10am

Funny you saying we should focus on bigger things as it has been your lot who have monopolised the headlines over this relative non-issue. Now it seems self-indulgent, on Labor's part, and gratuitous you want to move on.

I have never listened to Jones, he is a bore, and his Sydney-centric view grates, but I hope he survives professionally to spite Labor and the ABC.

Mark James:

Shebs, over at News Ltd, the dancing bears are making a halo for Master Abbott. It's headline news, apparently.

His wife says he's an "ordinary bloke".

And in tomorrow's The Australian, "Joe Hockey to make great Treasurer: wife".

And on Sunday, "The joy of Barnaby Joyce" by Natalie.

Next week there will be special features from all the front-bench families on why their favourite Liberals are qualified to lead Australia into a new "Golden Age" of prosperity, honesty, integrity, and a new industrial relations regime that looks absolutely nothing like W*rkChoices.

OUB :

05 Oct 2012 1:08:13pm

Mrs Abbott has apparently had enough of her husband being called a misogynist by the other lot of dancing bears Mark, Mss Plibersek, Wong and Roxon in tutus in the front line. Those of the left who complain about damage to Mr Gillard's family's feelings caused by Alan Jones' comments (I think you have been rather restrained here) happily trample all over the Abbott women's finer feelings. So Mrs Abbott has acted on her own volition to speak up on behalf of her husband. Do you have an issue with that? She seems to prefer to be her own woman rather than a political add-on. That's a good thing surely? To me it looked pretty ordinary to see both the US Presidential candidates' wives rush up to their husbands with a kid in tow immediately the debate was over.

OUB :

05 Oct 2012 4:10:32pm

But the ursine trio (three bears sounds less polite, given the Golldilocks thing) are happy to play up Abbott's alleged misogyny on every conceivable occasion. That's not news either. But still it gets reported and lapped up by the majority of left posters to be regurgitated later.

Never mind, we don't have to respect them, we just have to vote for them.

the working man:

05 Oct 2012 3:06:18pm

Oh yes, old Tones never watches the league, rugby etc. He watchesreruns of day of our lives, young and restless, while clutching a boxof tissues and tearing up. Oh that softy, that teddy bear old Tones.

Pedro 2000:

05 Oct 2012 3:25:37pm

It is not and never has been just about Jones. It is about a Right Wing Conservative backlash. Many people have had enough. Right Wing Conservatives make up about 30-35% of the Aust population. That is not a majority.

Remember Labor got 1 000 000 more primary vote than the Liberal party at the last election.

TGU:

05 Oct 2012 9:38:46am

Two things Johnno,1. It's wishful thinking on your part if you believe Jones is finished, if anything his popularity has increased.2. What has Turkey and Syria trading shots got to do with us, and what can we do about it anyway?

TGU:

Daveb, I don't think that Jones makes any positive contributions to Australian society, I do however believe that his rantings increase his popularity with a large segment of our society.

What possible influence can we as a small insignificant country have on a conflict in the middle east, we don't do a lot of trade with either Syria or Turkey so I fail to see what we can do to stop them killing each other.

maj:

05 Oct 2012 1:13:40pm

Daveb: Who the hell are you to tell anouther aussie citizen that it is mandatory for citizens to 'conribute to the growth of society' Citizens are not slaves of the State to do the States bidding. If you dont like Mr Jones, then you have lots of alternatives. Why is that so hard for you to do, Dave? Why do you seek to impose dicatorial rules on citizens in a free society?

Andrew T:

05 Oct 2012 12:29:55pm

Dear JohnnoH,

oh how I wish you were right. However, Alan Jones is as strong as ever. His listener base is high (goes to the core of what we Australians are really like), and the media love the drama because we, the audience, love the drama. The rights and wrongs of it have no relavence here.

Billy Bob Hall:

Forrest Gardener:

05 Oct 2012 7:53:30am

Barrie, people in the media have a choice. They can either be part of the solution or continue to be part of the problem.

Hint: rather than analysing every even for the impact it will have for the political fortunes of various partisan players, focus on the key role of the media in holding the government of the day to account.

jerrybrookman:

05 Oct 2012 8:40:35am

"focus on the key role of the media in holding the government of the day to account." If in fact that was their primary purpose then the opposition of the day must also be held to account by questioning any lies and scare campaigns they devise to tear down a democratically elected government. But of course the main purpose of the vast majority of the press is to make as much money as they can.

jerrybrookman:

05 Oct 2012 11:35:05am

I would be very happy indeed if The Opposition was held to account even half as much as the government.I would even settle for a quarter as much rather than the near total lack of scrutiny by almost ALL of the press.

Algernon:

05 Oct 2012 2:01:29pm

Funny JohnM, It's a hung parliament where they opposition could be called upon at any time to form a government. So yes they do need to be held to account in this circumstance. Unfortunately any scrutiny they fall at the first hurdle.

Colmery:

05 Oct 2012 9:19:12am

Well, actually it's very hard indeed, but yes we all have choices to make. The trouble is; it's the ones that are most difficult for us to make that matter most.

The notion that the media can keep politicians honest without being swept up in the emotions of it all are silly. The media is fast becoming anyone with a keypad and anyway, any audience big enough to matter is run by a mini-herd or bureaucracy. These hierarchies will always be driven by herd emotion as the ones we suffer under now.

What we need is evolution in our political system so that the primary drivers of human behaviour are influenced. However, discussion of the fundamental tenets of our system of governance needs the sort of talent and commitment it took to put a man on the moon.

Taswegian:

Uuhhhh:

05 Oct 2012 4:43:11pm

You must be really to the left, or seriously deluded, if you think Uhlmann is right wing. He's pretty well middle of the road, except perhaps to you and your ilk. The other ABC right-wingers you named as guests don't count, since they're just guests.

Julie:

05 Oct 2012 12:22:39pm

You must have been told I do not know how often about Gerard Henderson & Paul Sheehan. They are right wing. Extremely so. Sheehan launched a spectacular diatribe in the SMH in favour of Jones several days ago.

Every time you people say 'name me one right wing journo at Fairfax' you dig your own graves. They are there, and you know it. You pretend they don't exist.

On the other hand in the entire Murdoch stable the only journalist I can think of with even vaguely left wing views is Phillip Adams. Yet you saw News is 'balanced'. It is balanced because you agree with it.

Go on, I'll do what you do. Who apart from Philip Adams at News is 'left wing'?

OUB :

05 Oct 2012 1:24:39pm

The key role of the media is to pay their employees and suppliers and hopefully be left with a profit for the owners. There is little room for crusaders as a result. The government of the day should be the main focus - they have the resources at their disposal and formulate and execute the policies that employ the taxpayers' funds. The suitability of the opposition to replace the government of the day requires the media's attention as well but this should be a secondary concern. Actually tertiary. Photos of Kate and Miranda trump all.

Chris J Oliver:

05 Oct 2012 8:02:26am

This discussion is extraordinarily patronising to Gillard, a 51-year-old woman tough enough to enter politics, tough enough shaft Kevin Rudd for the top job, tough enough to cope with a shockjock saying her 83-year-old dad probably died of shame, tough enough to recognise that if Greg Combet was telling the truth about HIS mother and family getting the vapours over Jones's comment "Is this man on drugs?" then the ALP has a problem.Six days of disingenuous blather from the party that gave us homophobic, anti-felching abuse "conga line of suckholes" about how ghastly Jones. No wonder The Slap was so successful: it described exactly this sort of event, a minor slap delivered at a social occasion that got blown out of all proportion by a bunch of sanctimonious twazzocks with far too little going on in their lives.

Scotus:

05 Oct 2012 8:49:52am

I'm not sure that the discussion patronises Gillard, and I don't think her toughness is the issue. The issue is the offensiveness of Jones' comment. Sure politicians are tough, but I'm with Mrs Combet - as a member of the public I was shocked that a public figure (Jones) would make such a comment about the father of the PM. He has shown absolutely no respect for her or her office in the past, but to use her father's death to strike a new note is deeply shameful. Public reaction to Jones' lack of shame, his unmanliness, his extreme discourtesy, should be understood as a swipe at public decency AND Australian democracy. The toughness of anybody is not at issue here.

MDG:

05 Oct 2012 12:20:29pm

Jones' apology was on the low side of appalling. It was a self-congratulatory ramble with a brief nod towards contrition at having been caught out. Let's not forget that the 'apology' came a week later and only after the comments had gone public and threatened what was left of his reputation.

And "being as bad as Bob Ellis" is hardly the standard to aim for anyway.

Bob42:

OUB :

05 Oct 2012 1:37:08pm

I thought Chris was suggesting the PM was too tough to be offended by another bout of grubbiness from Jones. Do you disagree? If not where was offence taken? By the general public? How much was genuine offence and how much was a more professional offence d'ya reckon?

Do you recall a lot of respect for Howard and the office he held from those who did not support him in office? Should a guy's manliness or not be a matter of concern for the general public? Were those that were ostracised for raising the issue re Bob Carr unfairly dealt with in your estimation?

Creme brulee:

05 Oct 2012 9:35:42am

Chris, the article is about public discourse, not about the Prime Minister.

Jones has a lot of influence in certain sections of the public and is very closely associated with the Liberal Party and those who aspire to be its representatives. When he is caught expressing views that are the lowest of the low in respect of someone suffering a deep family sadness then it shows how low the public discourse has become.

By the way, it was not a party that gave us the awful conga line epithet. It is telling that the person who devised that ugly comment is so far estranged from his former party (and vice versa) that he advocated an informal ballot at the last election.

DJRH:

'Jones has a lot of influence in certain sections of the public and is very closely associated with the Liberal Party and those who aspire to be its representatives.'

More or less what I say when people say 'why are we making a big deal about this?'

Honestly, I personally don't want too. Sadly, Jones has a large audience that hang off every word he says. It would be easy enough to dismiss this whole thing as a stupid gaffe that was supposed to be made behind closed doors, but when you consider things like the chaff bag comment and his questionable influence in egging on the Cronulla riots, you realize this is the kind of discourse he uses in the public sphere too.

It's damaging to political discourse. Sadly people are jumping on it to push their own agendas, as Barry has said in this article.

I think if there's one thing we could take from this whole debacle, it's the virtue of not shooting ourselves in the foot by trying to be as sensationalist and blame-mongering as possible

Spinning Topsy:

05 Oct 2012 11:42:27am

Poor Andie, you exemplify everything that is wrong with public political discourse today - rigid, rabid, uninformed and tribal. The fact is that no matter which party is in power, the same mistakes will be made, the same issues will be skirted around and at the end of the day it won't make the slightest bit of difference to us the people. Our lives will go on unaffected no matter which team wins. (Unless it was the Great Swans win on Saturday!!!)

Andie:

05 Oct 2012 2:21:42pm

I am not "rigid,rabid, uninformed or tribal".

I am just a person who has paid income tax for almost 50 years and who has seen governments and politicians come and go.

I have lived through all those profligate ALP governments whose debts have to be paid by someone sometime and I despair at the moment that we have just lived through the biggest mining boom we will ever see and have nothing to show for it.

Why Swan has not even put one extra cent into the Future Fund from the billions of largess he has rceived.

Revenue has increased by 21% in the last five years. Swan has just increased our expenditure by 46% leaving us with the need for continued borrowing, $173 billion of accumulated deficit and more then $250 billion of government debt.

But you like Swan and Gillard keep your head in the sand and extoll the virtues of the Gillard ineptocracy as we accelerate towards the day of reckoning.

Screw Loose:

Elizabeth:

05 Oct 2012 8:10:37am

Every time we rehash his admittedly appalling comments of last week, all we do is re-expose people to this sordid but trivial rubbish and give Alan Jones more free publicity. Why don't we get back to any other serious issue - the closure of the Australian dental scheme, the US Presidential election, the NBN scheme and it's continually increasing costs, etc?Why don't we stop getting distracted by the trasy, petty stuff and demand more of our politicians than simply commenting on this 'he said, she said' nonsense?I also think it's worth noting that Alan Jones did apologise - surely that's enough to close the matter?

Miowarra:

No, Elizabeth. It wasn't an apology, it was an excuse and a vehicle for him to continue his political agenda against the government. 30 seconds of "it shouldn't have been said.." instead of "I shouldn't have said it" (Note the attempt to distance himself from his own actions even in the very words of his (ahem) "apology") and then another 45 minutes of attack.

It wasn't sincere.It wasn't enough at all.If it HAD been genuine and sincere, this would all have blown over already.

Tom1:

05 Oct 2012 9:16:44am

Elizabeth: I guess you must be serious or you wouldn't have bothered making your point. However you did make it in a partisan manner. You condemn Alan Jones, but then forgive him for making what you call an apology.

Like Jones, in his "apology" you list Government initiatives with which you disagree, and make a point of the US election because Romney appears to have won the first debate.

This issue has the Coalition on the back foot, and of course they want to put it aside. Abbott is trying his best, at this very moment to blame Gillard for everything that is happening in the union movement, and is calling Slipper her "creature". I do not suppose you include this in your trashy, petty stuff!

Andie:

When the ALP attack dogs stop blaming Abbott for everything from today's weather to the drivel that Jones sprouts everyday we might revert to real discussion.

Williamson is a former President of the ALP, I think he is still a member of the ALP and has been on the ACTU executive.

The Gillard union member dominated government members are as tainted by Williamsons actions as are the Liberals by Jones.

If I call you a "creature of habit" you now see that trashy petty stuff. Gillard bought Slipper with her fancy deal which even many of her party at the time feared would end like this. So yes Slipper is a creature of an ALP habit of quick fixes and tricky deals.

rudy:

05 Oct 2012 1:59:54pm

So andie - you won't stop fighting until somebody else does so first? Attitudes like that are why we don't have decent politics or world peace. But keep right on with the blinkered partisanship that you obviously live for, I'd hate to see you suffer from self-denial and altruism.

Brujo:

05 Oct 2012 2:14:54pm

We should demand an apology from Craig Thomson for Williamson's actions in covering up fraud in the HSU. They are pretty close mates and associates, are they not? Ergo, Thomson is responsible for Williamson, according to the ALP's line of reasoning.

Creme brulee:

05 Oct 2012 9:40:34am

Funny how everyone who wants to move away from Jones's disgusting comment is an opponent of the government who is happier with the continued spreading of lies and misinformation about the current government, especially those lies spread by the said Jones.

And Alan Jones did not apologise in any real sense. He mouthed the obligatory words and then went on to justify, defend, and attack the person who recorded them. He was sorry he was caught out- but nothing more. A real apology would have been short and sweet: "I'm very sorry. That was a most terrible thing to say. There is no excuse."

Honest Johnny:

05 Oct 2012 10:31:53am

Elisabeth, whilst I note Jones did attempt an apology, there's a hugh difference between saying, "I'm sorry I said it" and "I'm sorry for saying it". Jones would know the difference. He said the former, which is akin to saying "damn I got caught".

EM Laidly:

Alan Jones has been an abomination on the media landscape for some time, yet the same people who would rightfully criticise Jones give a free pass to Catherine Deveny.

Deveny is the Alan Jones of the left and unfortunately is dragging the left down with her stupid and appalling commentary. This is because the new "twittering" left lack any conversation or critique and with likes of Deveny has turned into a nasty, backbiting gossip.

Consider also this: had a male twittered that paedofiliac comment as Deveny did referring to Bindi Irwin, (which is as bad, if not worse as anything by Jones) they would have quite rightly been censored and not been invited back. It is a disgrace that modern feminist media has anything to do with her.

rudy:

05 Oct 2012 2:03:48pm

Did many people really demand that Jones never work again? I didn't see that. I despised Jones even before this low point but I've never demanded nor expected him to be sacked. I would expect the Libs to cool towards him, though, and I'll be surprised if they don't quietly move to put a bit of distance from him now. He doesn't help them like they think he does, they'll start to see it now.

EM Laidly:

Will:

05 Oct 2012 9:58:02am

It's frustrating when people make inaccurate and sanctimonious comments. Catherine Deveny lost her job and suffered greatly from the comment you are alluding to. But don't let the facts get in the way of your rant.

Ford:

05 Oct 2012 10:24:34am

Yet the ABC hires her on a regular basis...hmmm. So, what suffering has she undergone, exactly? Losing a job? Um, welcome to life.In fact, didn't Deveny joke about Rove's late wife...and then hope that someone else would get a terminal illness and die, and suggest that an underage girl was up for being raped because of how she was dressed? What's the distinction you're pretending exists here?Or were you hoping people had forgotten what Deveny said and wouldn't spend 30 seconds on the net checking?Or is it just funny to suggest a teenage girl should be raped, to you? Or that a man should get cancer and die?

EM Laidly:

Nina:

05 Oct 2012 12:34:51pm

You seem to be quite mistaken. Two people commenting on Hardy's blog said that, of Brendan Nelson.

So no, Hardy didn't say that. Where do you get your facts from? Even Andrew Bolt specifically stated that she didn't say that, and that some commenters on his own blog had left distasteful and violent messages about politicians.

DJRH:

05 Oct 2012 10:12:50am

I remember watching Go Back to Where You Came from and thinking about how Catherine Deveny was only shooting herself in the foot whenever she tried to confront Peter Reith about his asylum seeker policies. I agreed with her stance, but she seemed to think her self-entitled righteousness would be enough to break Reith.

As I've learnt the hard way, making people try and feel bad about themselves is a sure-fire way to make sure they never agree with you on anything you say.

OUB :

DJRH:

05 Oct 2012 4:09:19pm

No, I don't think so either. Which I think is a shame, because I agree with her views otherwise.

Really, the cases of Deveny and Jones have very strong parallels in regards to how trying to be provocative and offensive tends to derail and diminish the quality of political and social discourse. Deveny offends with a sense of righteous justice, while Jones offends with a tough-love, 'deal with it'-type attitude.

Both are impassioned, emotional debates that in the end up offending and driving people away than actually winning over anyone to an effective solution, or helping find a compromise when there can be one.

DJRH:

Joe:

Gillard's reaction to this digusting comment made by Jones at a Liberal party function shows how strong this politician is.

She gets everything thrown at her by Abbott and his "Tea-party" supporters and SHE WEARS IT.

Well done Julia Gillard. Your response this week has been the most admirable of anybody involved this affair. I hope that you can continue to grieve your father in peace and not have people like Jones use the fact that your dad died to increase their noteriety and make themselves richer (you just know that all those endorsements will come back to Jones in the coming months).

Aaron:

05 Oct 2012 9:01:24am

I agree.

Julia Gillard's response to this was more dignified than anything else she has done. It demonstrated character, courage, leadership and judgement - qualities she has struggled to convince the broader electorate she has.

It's a crying shame her response was undermined by a cacophony of party drones who just had to get their two cents in and push the party line.

Mind you, it's more of a shame that any such response was necessary at all, but this is where people like Jones have brought this country to - mindless personal insults in place of thought.

Ian:

05 Oct 2012 4:36:46pm

"And, of course, you know it was her advisers' not her decision." Given that the Prime Minister blamed her staff for the Australia Day riot, rather than take personal responsibility, it seems a reasonable inference.

Tropical:

Dan Lawton :

05 Oct 2012 8:18:43am

Initially I was upset by Jones cruel and undignified comment. That lasted a day . It was ended by the pure political attacks on him by the leftist Government and media. By the end of the third day I couldn't have care'd less what Jones had called the old bloke and in what context. The hypocritical partisan attacks on Alan Jones, by those I am certain never listen to his show , and the attacks on free speech by the Government, had me in Jones's corner fighting mad. Alan Jones does and gives more , in time and treasure to so many people in one month than the combined number of his detractors in the media and government do in their entire lifetimes. Jones is an Australian Hero. Get with the program.

Algernon:

05 Oct 2012 8:49:03am

Any comments on his "apology" which was nothing more than a 45 minute ad for his program. Sponsors seem to be leaving him in their droves. There is nothing "Australian Hero" about him. Its nothing more than the voice of hatred. I'm sure 2GB doesn't want to be labelled hate radio.

Wining Pom:

05 Oct 2012 9:12:56am

'Jones is an Australian Hero.' Anybody that trashes the Prime Minister of a country cannot be described as a hero of that country. At best he can be called a Liberal hero and therefore not out for the whole of Australia.

Harry:

05 Oct 2012 9:15:22am

"Initially I was upset by Jones cruel and undignified comment. That lasted a day . It was ended by the pure political attacks on him by the leftist Government and media. By the end of the third day I couldn't have care'd less what Jones had called the old bloke and in what context".

Your comments show you either do not get that:

1. Jones has been a serial offender in his nasty, misogynistic comments and mis-representation of the truth if not outright lies.

2. He has been reprimanded before by ACMA for calling Lebanese people "vermin". An apology for that offence has not been forthcoming so far.

3. His apologies are not genuine and hedged with qualifications and fresh attacks

or you are just as partisan in your views as others you accued as being partisan.

mark:

05 Oct 2012 9:17:08am

Alan Jones is someone who deserves our pity.He is a sad excuse for a human being. He has allowed his life to be consumed by anger and hatred. He has used his broadcasts to beat up those he doesn't like.I'm sure he is quite intelligent, and capable of contributing to a better society, but instead he spews bile and abuse, shouts down those who disagree, while highlighting how much charity work he does - like a desperate attempt to say look at me and how nice I am. The truth is that most of us give our time to worthy causes... whether that be donating to charities, helping out our local schools or sporting clubs at their events, involvement with organisations such as Rotary, Lions, Amnesty, etc. And we all do this without having to broadcast what great people we are. The cause is the reward, not the good press it gets us.I find that many everyday people are heroes, but if Jones is hero to you, that really says something. Something equally sad.

Anomalo Carisman:

05 Oct 2012 1:55:05pm

I wish everyone would stop picking on poor Alan. Being outrageous is only part of his job. He is 2GB's main talent and 2GB's majority owner John 'Singo' Singleton doesn't care what he says as long as the business continues to make him a profit. The main listening demographic is battler truck drivers, tradies and people 70 or over (like Bronwyn Bishop). Like tabloid newspapers and television, its the job of all of the presenters to promote anger, fear and outrage. Thats what sells. Jones is particularily good at his job and gets paid millions of dollars per year to keep his listeners angry, scared and outraged. And they love it. It helps them understand the world and gives them someone else to blame for whatever plight they find themselves in. Problem is, the battlers are being told how to think, and how to do battle by someone who really isn't one of their own. They just can't see through it.

Mango:

05 Oct 2012 10:33:16am

Obviously you weren't too upset with Jones' remarks as you go on to describe him as a hero. You follow the pattern Barry outlined, of a few words up fronty faking some disapproval and then go on to attack others and then end up defending Jones. Your just as guilty of spin as those that tried to blame Abbott for the remarks.

Paul Pott:

Lord Lucan:

05 Oct 2012 8:19:07am

I lay the bitter language used on a daily basis these days squarely at the feet of Abbott and the Coalition. In a two year long bile filled dummy spit over not becoming P.M he has dragged politics into the gutter and polarised people like never before. Alan Jones is a mouth piece for the Liberal Party, if Abbott asked him to tone it down he would. Abbott scares people, his poll figures are worse than Gillard's figures. He is obviously worried because he has dragged his wife kicking and screaming into the media this morning to indicate that he's a sensitive new age guy and cries in movies. How does this fit in with his anti union head kicking, abusive, play the person not the issue style. The Murdoch Press is so vile and biased in their stance on this government that Labor has to take anything that comes their way.e.g Abbott's behaviour at university. I disagree with getting into the gutter to counteract their arguments but how do you deal with bullies? If the Coalition stopped their bitterness and vindictiveness and argued on policy and issues, not playing the person none of this language would be heard. I have always found it fascinating that people who claim to be Christians are the ones who are setting the tone for this nastiness.

Daveb:

05 Oct 2012 9:31:01am

Well at least you are consistent Custard.

I thought the discourse associated with Mr Jone's comments was about what are the values we expect and practice as we live in a civil society. What responsibilities come with the rights of freedom of speech?

Mark James:

Actually custard, the discourse we currently have in the political sphere right now is due to the overwhelming bitterness of the Coalition and News Ltd having narrowly lost the 2010 election.

It's a discourse that has been made toxic by:

*Editorials threatening to "destroy" political parties.*By opposition rhetoric linking government policies to the destruction of towns (Whyalla).*By opinion pieces posing as news stories attempting to trash the economy and create the conditions in which a large number of Australians are more fearful of our economic future than the Spanish, who have a youth unemployment rate of over 50%.*By sour losers introducing the language of violence into the public debate by saying the PM is walking around "with a target on her head" (Tony Abbott), that voters should be "kicking her to death" (Graheme Morris), that she should be taken out to sea in a chaff bag and left there (Alan Jones).

Andie:

the working man:

05 Oct 2012 3:42:36pm

Andie, Abbott's dead horse is the carbon tax, he rode it into the groundand it just died. His blood oath promise and until his last breath, what ajoke. How time did the media spent following this fool around.

fredn:

05 Oct 2012 12:31:10pm

Custard, "The discourse we currently have" is completely the product of an Opposition within one vote of power not accepting they lost the election and moving on to being the "Loyal Opposition" and doing their job.

They believe that if they can run amok and wreck the place, making the country ungovernable, they may just shake loose a vote or two and get power.

Fortunately, they have failed. Contrary to the fiction Abbott tries to peddle, this government has actually proved representative democracy can weather even the most concerted efforts of a noisy minority to usurp power. Whatever the right want to claim because it suits them now, our system gives the party or group in parliament with even a one vote majority three years to govern. The Opposition should be working to get the best outcomes possible in that three years, not just take a wrecking ball to the country so they can then claim the wreckage is the fault of the government.

A bunch of one liners proves nothing but the shallowness of your understanding.

BG:

MDG:

05 Oct 2012 12:25:57pm

Lucan's talking about *Abbott's* polling figures, and they are appalling. Massive net disapproval ratings, low Preferred PM figures - even when he's led Gillard on that front he's never come close to a majority. He is easily the most unpopular Opposition Leader in years. That he is facing the most unpopular PM in years is the only thing making him look vaguely presentable.

Andie:

DaisyMay:

05 Oct 2012 4:04:51pm

No one is insulting Abbott's family. Abbott and his minders coerced his wife into defending him on National TV and the front pages of Murdoch newspapers.... no one doubts that Mrs Abbott loves her family.

realist :

05 Oct 2012 9:11:01am

You are part of the problem and your attitude is responsible for events like this. You believe that the ALP have never played the man/woman and are pure and guilt free of this problem. Both side do it, they have been doing it long before Abbott entered the pariament, probably long before he was born. You continue to perpetuate the myth that the ALP would never hit below the belt. I believe Jones is an idiot as I have said before and have never listened to him, however thats not the point, the point is what is acceptable and what is not, you seem to believe you know. Your statement about Abbott and his wife is out of line, do you know the man or his wife? Where you there? Its time you and your kind from both sides stopped playing the person and did something about the problem, not continue it. I guess you believe your rant is justified, where do you draw the line?Do you have some kind of judgement in knowing what can be said and what cannot? PS The Whitlam saga polarised the people a lot more than any current event, guess you were not around then.

Harry:

05 Oct 2012 9:52:50am

Realist: Yes both sides have been guilty of some nasty comment, that is almost self-evident. But Jones has been a serial offender and continues to spout his nasty bile-even his "apology" was another long diatribe laden with further attacks on the PM and not credible attempts to characterise his "chaff bag" and similar outbursts as jokes.

Abbott cannot escape some guilt by association either as he has courted and flattered Jones on his radio programs and stood side by side with Jones at some rather vile demonstrations.

markd:

lazarus:

05 Oct 2012 3:50:21pm

You obviously have never read history if you think that. There has been some wonderful examples from state parliaments back to the 1800's of name calling and vitriol. It certainly isn't a recent phenomenon.

Tom1:

05 Oct 2012 9:42:40am

I agree with much of what you have said LL. The only thing I am uncertain of is whether he is as bad and vindictive as he seems to be. I admire his efforts in sport, but I am uncertain whether this is all for show or not.

I believe that he can probably be charming,towards some women, but how much is that a pretence.

He set our from day to vilify Julia Gillard, and calls her a "Liar" on very dubious grounds, on a daily basis. He has single handed lowered the standard of public debate.

Trawling up unedifying comments over the years from politician of both sides does not justify Abbott's current strategy, nor Jones' vile comments.

Mrs Abbott's appearance on TV and in the media, although brave on her part, cannot be taken seriously.

I really believe that had Abbott adopted a different approach he would be closer to gaining the Lodge than he is now,

Aristides:

05 Oct 2012 10:14:57am

Points taken about Abbott and Jones. Jones has been an attack dog for the right for years. Gillard and co are just as bad. They know how to bully and belittle and play the system. Just look at the cynical way they treated Andrew Wilkie. And just look at how they cast him aside using Slipper. Roxon is still prepared to go on Jones program. If their outrage was that bad they should all boycott his program. Gillard and co do a nice line in bastardry just look at the way they shafted one of their own- Rudd. Of course, the outrage has been directed at this relatively minor kerfuffle. There is a far more important story that is not going to get the coverage it deserves and that is the arrest of the head of HSU, who was the president of Labour, and whose daughter was secured a position in Gillard's office. Who was paying her salary. Perhaps Barry could tell us. Previous contributors to the drum have told us how the union factional heavy weights use their positions not to advance policy but their own narrow self interest. Then of course we have the Thompson and his wandering credit card. Also intimately linked into this latest arrest despite his assertions to the contrary. Of course the whiter than white Gillard will be playing the sub judice get out of jail card for all it is worth. A pox on both their houses.

OUB :

Otwen:

05 Oct 2012 8:19:10am

The comments should have been left to stand on their own as appalling and outrageous. However, the very day after they were made public, Nicola Roxon (the country's AG for Christ's sake) fronts a morning show and starts the political circus ('it's all Abbots fault'), followed in due course by Albo, Emerson, Swan, Rudd et al.

Mind boggling stuff...I cannot get my head around that they would use this slur against the PMs father's death for political mileage. And this of course encouraged the return fire from the other side. Their 'ham fisted' approach says a hell of a lot more about them than they would ever realise.

jerrybrookman:

Lord Lucan:

05 Oct 2012 9:03:46am

They've used this slur for political mileage. What has the coalition been doing for the past two years? You have to be joking. They have orchestrated the most bitter hate campaign against a political leader in history. Gillard must be an astoundingly strong person to have survived.

maj:

05 Oct 2012 1:40:58pm

I didnt know it was illegal to hate someone. I didnt know it was illegal to be biter, or twisted, or robust or express pasionate opinions. is it time to move past this silly debate about 'manners', and talk about 'criminal' matters, like the arrest of a union boss for trying to pervert an investigation into financial fraud in his union. I havent noticed and news reports about that on the ABC but Ilm sure they will. Maybe.

atomou:

05 Oct 2012 9:17:01am

What is it that you can't get your head around, exactly? Jones made a political comment -egregiously disgusting comment. Politicians came out to show their disgust. Totally natural reaction. I would not expect anything different had the egregiously disgusting comments came out from the other side of the political fence.Vulgar commentators like Jones should be told, n no uncertain terms, that they are vulgar.

atomou:

05 Oct 2012 3:59:42pm

Live with what, FG? The complete demolition of sense and sensibility in our political scene? The junglification of our society? I don't care who hates whom, I only care that when a political podium is used, it be used with a brain and a heart free of bilious hatred and it seems that this behaviour has been taking a more grievous pace in Oz the last couple of years, Abbott and Jones its biggest proponents.

GRF:

Jones is an entertainer, and his stock-in-trade is the ascerbic and tasteless. That's what attracts his audience. No doubt the current saturation publicity will do wonders for his ratings.

The really sinister thing is the fact that the left milked a nonsense comment at a private function, which was never even news-worthy let alone worth giving the dignity of being repeated (ad-naseum), for all its worth and then some.

If some world leader says they want to nuke a nation off the planet, its worth paying attention to the words they say and analysing it carefully. Those are the type of situations where words count and are newsworthy.

Philby:

05 Oct 2012 9:43:39am

Wow! I am interested to know that you consider this extremely personal attack as how did you call it 'a nonsense comment'. Ask anyone and see if many would say an attack on someones dead loved one is nonsense.

Pedro 2000:

hairy nosed wombat:

05 Oct 2012 8:21:20am

Tony Abbott was completely correct this week when he said we need a return to civility in public discourse in this nation. I would argue though that it has been the right that has lead the movement towards more aggressive and shrill language over the last decade, following the lead from the USA. It is time for the conservative side of politics to start reminding us of the better parts of conservatism, which i would argue includes respect, decency and politeness - which they appear to have completely disavowed under Abbott. Though it isn't as if it has been a one sided descent, and the ALP commentary on the Jones comments this week has been plain cringeworthy.

I suspect if we all just start being a little bit more polite to each other in our political discourse, the rest will look after itself. We are not having a political conversation currently, we are having an inane shouting match. Lets get back to a conversation, and the cornerstone of conversation is civility.

Lord Lucan:

05 Oct 2012 8:40:22am

Abbott's comments that we need to return to civility reveal him to be a hypocrite of the highest order. He and Pyne have poured forth poison for the last two years and gotten very personal in the process. He needs to lead by example. As has been stated Abbott has been playing the short game in a desperate attempt to bring down this government and it has failed. He is now working on the sensitive new age Tony. Let's see how he goes with this persona. He needs to put his vitriolic attack dogs Pyne, Jones, Hadley and co on a leash and develop a couple of policies.

OUB :

05 Oct 2012 2:44:07pm

Is there a politician that is not a hypocrite of the highest order? It is a prerequisite for the job. The voters imposed the prerequsite. If they were fair and reasonable we'd vote for a person with a bit more mongrel in them.

Rickbee:

Adman:

05 Oct 2012 11:04:30am

"we can also add that the Australian consulate in Italy added and abetted that mother in abducting her children in breach of the Haig (sic) convention."

They didn't. They helped the mother and father come to an agreement that she would take the children on holiday to Australia and that the children would return at the end of that holiday.The mother was the one who failed to take the children back. But let's not let facts get in the way of a good kicking. It is purposely misinformed comments like yours that are damaging the standard of debate.

maj:

05 Oct 2012 1:54:24pm

Adman is confused. debate is all about differing points of views being expressed by different people holding different evidence and having different beliefs about 'the facts'. The only time when the standard of degate is 'damaged' is not when people express a view, but when there isn't any.

Adman:

05 Oct 2012 3:16:44pm

Sorry, you are the one that seems a little confused. I am more than happy for people to express opinion, as long as it is based on facts that is. But in this case Bev has absolutely no evidence. It is an incredibly long bow to draw in stating that consular officials knew the mother wouldn't bring them back and that they actively participated in a crime.When people extrapolate the known facts to such an extent that it surpasses conjecture and enters the realms of fiction, and then decide to present their imaginings as fact... Well, if we can just make stuff up that is when a debate has ended. Because, in those situations, it simply comes down to who can tell the best story.

OUB :

Kate Emerson:

05 Oct 2012 6:34:06pm

Hahaha! You can't win with that old chestnut. Never hear from the woman and the moment Abbott is worried about the polls because of Alan Jones, suddenly Margie pops up? Sorry OUB but that particular dog won't hunt. It's a desperate publicity stunt from a man who is afraid of losing to Labor on one side and afraid of Malcolm Turnbull on his own. As I said earlier, if no one else will support you, I guess your family has to...

Smoker of a Gun:

05 Oct 2012 4:19:05pm

All the Media know what's going on, people are the last to find out about it.Just remeber 7 August 2012 the BBC Editor resigned ASAP, the same day a Russian Illyushin 76 plane returned from a Mission flying back to Russia.Who was A.Jones endorsing the Liberal's & why the frantic flurry on the monday, the US preseidential election debate!

Nedkel:

05 Oct 2012 8:28:21am

There was nothing over the top about the criticism of that vile bully Alan Jones ... like most ofr his kin he is great at abusing others fror money or other reward but has no intention of giving a genuine apology ... he and they can only cry foul that someone is taking him to task ... and Jones used the exact same words as his mate Abbott uses when he is caught out.

Stop trying to take any of the heat of Jones or out of thie criticism. The Australian public are telling you and the world they are sick and tired of the lying coniving individuals who spend their days ande nights bullying others for their own personal reward, both in public and in private. Its time these people were shipped off to Abbott's concentration camps in Nauru or New Guinea.

Lou:

05 Oct 2012 8:30:59am

Today we are reading about the Tony that I know from his wife,I find it all a little pathetic because I'm sure that no one questions his role as a father and husband so I found the statements that he washes up and cleans the kitchen all very trite. The problem that I have with Mr.Abbott is his assumption that he has a right to interfere in women's reproductive processes, his language when commenting about our Prime Minister, his relentless attacks in Parliament against the Prime Minister to name a few. He doesn't propose alternate policies and argue them in a civilised, if forceful, manner it is three word slogans and amongst that he manages to dengrate the position of Prime Minister. Alan Jones makes outrageous comments and should be condemmed but I would point out that the stuff that is said about the Prime Minister is disgusting and to think that Tony needs the protection of his wife is almost laughable and maybe her time would be best spent ,as a woman, speaking out about these hideous comments about a fellow woman. She would certainly gain my respect if she did.

Algernon:

05 Oct 2012 8:31:30am

Let's see how long this thing has legs will we. I don't listen to him, feels its opinion is worthless given his London public toilet shenanigans. Yet there are those who do listen to it and hang onto every hate filled and vitriolic word that it mutters. Oh and his a darling of the Liberals. The voice of the 1920's, Bronwyn Bishop was effuse with her words earlier this week, sentiments I'm sure her colleagues warmly embrace.

I suspect within a few weeks many of the sponsors will be back and the hate and bile will increase. After all its the victim.

custard:

Horrocks:

05 Oct 2012 10:04:08am

Typical Left, bring up the incident from years ago, what about all the other travesties of the alp such as Roxon 's abuse of power, the arrest of the former National President of the ALP for feud and other charges, why won't you talk about that

Algernon:

05 Oct 2012 10:47:19am

Oh dear Horrocks, It goes to the character of the creature and the influences he pulled in to have the charges dropped. Yet you choose to deflect from the subject being discussed with issues that aren't relevant here.

Algernon:

Horrocks:

05 Oct 2012 10:21:33am

Typical Left, bring up the incident from years ago, what about all the other travesties of the alp such as Roxon 's abuse of power, the arrest of the former National President of the ALP for feud and other charges, why won't you talk about that

lazarus:

OUB :

05 Oct 2012 3:50:15pm

Algie can you please explain the links between Jones' London public toilet shenanigans (never fully explained?) and the validity of his opinions. Are you suggesting his sexuality has a bearing on the worthiness of his opinion? Because that might annoy some regular posters here. Have you accidentally lapsed into homophobia here? Please take the opportunity to explain yoiur comments.

JohnM:

05 Oct 2012 8:31:50am

Please move on from being a Labor speech writer. Regardless of how Jones framed it, Gillard is a liar. I don't need a replay of Jones's comment to learn that.

In good Labor style Jones is linked to Abbott despite Abbott having no control whatsoever over Jones. readers should realise that listeners ultimately dictate Jones's ability to comment because without an audience he's nothing, but tax-payers have to fund ABC staff whether they wish to or not.

Later in this piece we see mention Williamson of the HSU but a skating around the issue of MP Thompson who I believe was also deeply involved in the HSU.

So Barry, while there's some sensible comment scattered in this piece, there's also plenty of politically biased blather.

Bob42:

05 Oct 2012 5:01:23pm

JohnM or Custard or Maj or Andie or whatever name you are currently posting under, Abbott explored this line of attack when he told the Australian people and the Parliament that Peter Garret was personally responsible for the death of a young insulation fitter while his family were still grieving. Abbott made this disgusting claim under Parliamentary Privelige and he got away with it! Jones was merely trying to build on a tactic that he had seen Abbott use and get away with.

Johnny_C:

05 Oct 2012 8:34:02am

Alan Jones is considered by aspiring young Liberals as 'the best influential public speaker'. And it's the reason that he is asked and appears at many events organised by the Liberals for fundraising. Not to mention that on the other side of Jones' microphone is supporters like none other than Tony Abbott, current Liberals leader.

In a nutshell, Alan Jones is a standards bearer of the conservative and right-wing forces when it comes to propaganda. One can not help but think about the ugly voices of the extreme right-wings in the US. Birds of the same feather...

To people who were old enough during the Cold War, Alan Jones' demeanor on radio broadcasting is NO different to that of a former Soviet Union spokesperson.

The irony is that Alan Jones would denounce the commies and their propaganda while hapily adopting their monologue style.

And yet some people automatically think they are at the top level in the whole animal kingdom just because they can listen to some shock jock.

Harry:

05 Oct 2012 10:29:59am

Agree. In fact some of Jones's on air remarks have been tantamount to incitement to violence! He was slapped on the wrist over some of these but arguably he should have been taken off the air for a period to reflect.

Luke:

05 Oct 2012 8:34:37am

I think this saga has run it's course now Barry. You talk about over the top reactions, well don't you think banging on still and attempting to milk it the way you are is also a little over the top? Allan Jones is a disgusting twit, most of us know that. Trying to drag it out like this makes you look like a twit.

Chris Baker:

05 Oct 2012 8:36:21am

I think you're onto something here Barrie. Alan Jones did not do this in a vacuum.

After signing the petition against Alan Jones I realised this is a petition not just to Alan Jones but a petition to me, and perhaps all of us. It easy to see the wrong doing in others, and easy to feel smug and good about myself by signing such a petition.

I need to notice that he has been able to say this because he has been able to get away with this kind of denigration many times before because I have allowed this behaviour in me and others. And I have been able to get away with denigration of others by finding excuses. Its only the degree of his insult that separate him from many of us who do similar things.

He was of course making a joke of sorts at private function, and somehow that made it ok. And I have made sexist and racist jokes at private functions and thought that it was ok because, after all, it is a joke. But its the minor denigrations of others that we all do every day, that creates an environment that allows someone like Alan Jones to think that its ok.

We are all responsible for the culture that we have created throughout our lives that allows this to happen. We can make a difference by the signing a petition, but perhaps the greatest difference we can make is in how we live every day.

It would be nice if Alan Jones changed. But the only person I can change is me, and, you know, that could be just enough of a project for me to be going on with without thinking that I need to change someone else.

debinoz:

It's about time that all those who hold public positions from shock jocks up to Politicians had a strict code of conduct to adhere to. Just like the rest of us.

If I went to work and spoke with the nastiness that I hear from people like Jones (actually I don't listen to him), or any politician - especially Abbott and Campbell - I would be disciplined.

To say these people are childish is an assault on children.

Why can't they control their impulses to spit venom? It's about time they were issued with large fines for their verbal assault on others. Big fines - hit them where it hurts. Then they'll start using a bit of mindfulness and restraint.

DaisyMay:

05 Oct 2012 8:38:43am

....and the week ends with Abbott in full panic mode. His wife is wheeled out to to defend him. It was embarrassing to watch. It must have been humiliating for her that her husband because of his relentless aggression and negativity, his violent rhetoric , his support and friendship with Jones whose antipathy to the Prime Minister is so widely known, needed her to come out and tell us what a good boy he really is... Perhaps I missed the part where she admonished Jones for his disgustingly offensive comments about Julia Gillard's father.

DaisyMay:

05 Oct 2012 10:18:56am

"The handbag hit squad"....a Liberal slogan... denigrates all women, not just female Labor politicians, who speak out against the use of violence, abusive language and misogynist attitudes towards women.

Abbott has shown by his own well documented behaviour that he is not averse to treating women in an aggressive manner . If his wife and family see him differently, perhaps the "real" Tony could show up in Parliament next sitting and show us all his kinder and gentler persona.

Shebs:

05 Oct 2012 12:13:11pm

No way Daisy, the "handbag hit-squad" is a term I, and likely others, use to denigrate or criticise the apparently unassailable cadre of women around Gillard who think they can attack Tony Abbott without let or hindrance, and will hide behind sexism if they feel they need to.

To stretch this to encompass a dreamed up Liberal philosophy that denigrates women is your take, and a long bow to draw indeed, as well as hypocritical, given the sexism in the ALP.

Gillard doles out abuse, invective and insults, as do her crew, handbag toting or not, and you cry foul because one woman defends her husband and family. Hmmmm.....

Lou:

05 Oct 2012 1:51:56pm

Your 'defence' of the use of this term would be plausible if it was only women 'attacking' Tony Abbott. What is the all-encompassing term for the men who 'attack' Tony Abbott? It's a serious question. If people want to use this misogynistic term they should be able to answer this question. Employing a derogatory, demeaning, one-size fits all term to describe human beings who challenge the veracity of a political foe's position is sheer, simplistic propagandising.

Shebs:

People of both sexes have gleefully referred to TA as "the Mad Monk" for years, and yes, much of the most concerted attacks on Abbott have come from the self-righteous handbag squad.

Sorry, but I don't need a derogatory term for the men attacking Abbott, because the women stand out: they use different standards and hide whan they cop anything in return. Roxon and Wong and Plibersek say things all the time that would be condemned if a man said them, especially a conservative men.

Propagandising? I guess being a Labor supporter you would know: I get called a "denier", a "homophobe", a "racist" and a misogynist by the likes of you merely because I am conservative and disagree with you. Sorry, but disputing policy and proper discourse are abused when your side resports to name-calling and imprecations just because we disagree with you on something.

Labor has a huge history steeped in racism, giving us the White Australia Policy, also sexism as typified by the likes of Bob Hawke and the union stance on gays is only recently PC. Name calling and "one size fits all" diminutives and epithets are a Labor stock-in-trade. Using such terms might bring me down to your level, but sometimes slumming it is fun.

Creme brulee:

Lou:

05 Oct 2012 4:02:24pm

This is a really interesting post to analyse. You describe me as a Labor supporter yet I've not identified myself as one. You assert that the women 'stand out' and 'use different standards' but cannot seem to provide evidence to qualify these statements. You resort to the arrogant expression 'slumming it is fun' which renders what you've written hopelessly personal, instead of analytically political.

If you go back and read my post I said that the term 'handbag hit squad' was misogynistic. Nowhere have I resorted to a personal attack on you but apparently it's more important to wallow in projective, 'read between the lines', than a carefully considered response to what was actually written.

Algernon:

05 Oct 2012 4:07:04pm

Tell the lie often enough shebs and you think people will believe you. Labor supported the protectionists who where a precursor to the Liberals in introducing the White Australia Policy. The Protectionist where the Government of the time. It was Labor that finally repealed it

oldenbutnowiser:

05 Oct 2012 4:21:41pm

Still following your SOB I see. Labor may have given Australia the White Australia Policy ( I say may advisedly) but the relevant Act ( I will lend you a Wheelchair accessible copy of the Race Restriction Act if you desire ) giving de jure force to the policy was enacted under the Barton administration ( hardly a bunch of lefties) and the policy reamained in force until at least the late 1940s. Labor may well have given Australia the policy but they could only have done so because your tribe ( and I am sorry but no less apt description is availbale) supported it and, more significantly,did nothing to repeal it at any stage during the first half of of this century, during which period the Conservative parties were in power federally for the majority of that time. In Common Law Criminal terms, if the White Australia Policy was a crime committed by the ALP your tribe was guilty of the offence of misprsion of felony.

Creme brulee:

05 Oct 2012 3:56:11pm

In fact, the handbag hit squad was thought up by the Liberal spin machine as a way of denigrating women who do not fit the Liberal Party stereotype and run with by the right-wing cadres with a devotion that would have made Chairman Mao jealous.

seajae:

05 Oct 2012 3:37:46pm

being a labor appologist(paid?) makes you look like a fool especially when you start putting your foot in your mouth which you do a lot. When labor women can actually stop stooping to the lows that they are currently then maybe people will stop calling them names but as long as they are using their so called female rights to abuse their positions we will continue to rag them. Gillard gives as good as she gets like all the labor "women" then strangely they try to claim the retaliation to mwhat they say/do as mysogony. Maybe if they crawled out of the gutter it would make a difference but we know that labor like being in the gutter, it is where they operate best

Andrew T:

05 Oct 2012 6:07:53pm

Forgot to add that you've made another interesting point. It may well be that Tony has no issues with women, however perhaps he is paying the price for playing the game a little too well. If indeed this is the case, it's a wonderful kind of justice.

Spinning Topsy:

05 Oct 2012 12:04:21pm

I actually don't think Abbott's real problem is about women. I think he was brought up to believe that he was entitled to everything he wanted (read David Mar's essay). He was allowed to believe that what Tony wanted Tony would always get. He was the much wanted son delivered to the family after 3 daughters who would carry the family's banner either into a Cardinal's robes or a Prime Minister's office. He has never learned to lose. He has no ability to process any thwarting of his desires. Thus we see this aggressive, unattractive man, bouncing on the balls of his feet, looking like he is about to land a punch on the next person he sees. The sense of repressed violence is very disturbing.

RobP:

05 Oct 2012 1:24:13pm

"....and the week ends with Abbott in full panic mode. His wife is wheeled out to to defend him."

Michelle Obama is regularly drawn into the US campaign, same with Mitt Romney's wife and only now with Abbott, although I understand Margy Abbott did it somewhat reluctantly. Nothing unusual to see here; they all do it.

DaisyMay:

05 Oct 2012 2:40:25pm

During an election campaign it is par for the course....We are not due for an election in Australia for another year.I feel truly sad for a woman who loves her family, but has had to be coerced into sugar coating the past and present bad behaviour of her ambitious husband.

Kerry:

05 Oct 2012 5:36:45pm

DaisyMay,

I would consider myself Left of Centre-Left, so I applaud most of the policies of Labor (NDIS, NBN, implementing the Gonski report findings, carbon pricing, MRRT), not happy with off-shore processing in Nauru and Manus Island. Regional co-operation and agreements with South-East Asian countries would be more equitable and effective for 'stopping the boats' (truly hate that phrase) and allowing more responsive resettlement of refugees.

Long preamble, I know. Just setting credentials to show I am not from the Right pretending to be to the Left.

"His wife is wheeled out to to defend him. It was embarrassing to watch." I feel this is very patronising and demeaning to Mrs Abbott.

Sadly I think these comments will give comfort to Alan Jones and his supporters as a defence against criticism of his speech. By all means be critical of Jones' ill-mannered, mean-spirited, uncalled for speech, but do so by attacking the speech, not other people by implication or association. I do not like Tony Abbott's constant negative attacking Government policies without providing alternatives, but in this instance he is not guilty of association because of his friendship with Jones. Tony Abbott said the speech by Jones was unacceptable - we should take this on its face value.

I think hairy nosed wombat says it best "We are not having a political conversation currently, we are having an inane shouting match. Lets get back to a conversation, and the cornerstone of conversation is civility."

I think people from all sides of the political debate (there are not just two sides) need to take stock on how they prosecute their arguments:

* Vigorous debate is healthy - spiteful, mean-spirited attacks on the person in stead of the policy are not.* Your arguments should be about the benefits of your team's policies are, not how bad your opponents are.* If you need to debate your opponents policies; argue facts, why policy is bad or needs amending (not the 'great big new tax' but the actual policy), and any alternatives to that policy (yes, I know 'they' will steal your policies if you put them up - the voting public should agree they are good policies if the Government has to 'steal' them - kudos to you.)* Policies that most broadly agree with - eg NDIS - all sides should look at making them the best possible with non-political debate. The Government of the day should acknowledge the contribution of all parties involved in a non-political way.

David:

05 Oct 2012 8:39:25am

The Australian media and government has effectively wasted a week on this idiotic remark and all it has done is make Jones a martyr to his dedicated listeners. As for Gerry Harvey, withdrawing his sponsorship and coming out with that remark is what I would call having a bet both ways.

Edward Threeling:

05 Oct 2012 8:40:01am

I'm shocked that anyone was surprised by the comments of Alan Jones. He has always had a reputation for that kind of thing. There was nothing new there. However it must be said that I'd be very proud if my daughter became PM and highly disappointed if she became a mean spirited disc jockey.

Scratcher:

05 Oct 2012 8:42:39am

Barry you are reading far too much into this charade which was a stage-managed stunt coordinated by Liberal party HQ. Confronted with negative reactions to Abbott's 'hit the wall' incident, and compounded by his hesitant denial, they needed to do some backburning and Jones put up his hand to take the heat off Abbott. Look at the facts. The comments were made by a Liberal party shock jock at a Liberal party function. They were taped by a journo from NewsLtd (the Liberal party propaganda arm) and released no less than a week later for maximum impact. The rest is just a sideshow aimed at keeping it in the limelight for as long as possible. Perhaps it is not going as planned as NewsLtd now tries to turn Abbott the thug into Abbott the softie. Fat chance.

RupertsHackers:

05 Oct 2012 12:19:17pm

Saw the puff piece about Abbott on channel 9 last night and just read the followup in today's Telegraph. What a laugh. Looks like NewsLtd is cranking up the rescue package. As for me, I must be catching Christopher Pyne's disease, because whole thing made me feel "vomitous." In my eyes Abbott remains a bully and a blatant liar about his thuggish days at uni. This attempt by faceless image-makers to paint him otherwise just makes him a fraud as well.

Spinning Topsy:

05 Oct 2012 1:41:26pm

Hmm - dunno about that - generally speaking if there's a choice between a stuff up and a conspiracy I'd be inclined to go with the stuff up. That the Liberal Party is in full containment mode would tend to indicate that.

Rodf:

05 Oct 2012 8:49:59am

The Labor party should be congratulating Alan Jones. His stupid comments have done more to advance Gillards chances of retaining government at the next election than all of Labors union slush funds combined.

Forrest Gardener:

GDee:

05 Oct 2012 8:51:06am

The only people that really give a stuff about Alan Jones and what he said are "The Media"and politicians who think they're going to gain a few votes out of it.The Lou Costello mob on the Govt front bench immediately got into their usual punch line of "HEEY AABBOTT"and all the Jones haters of the Fairfax Press started putting the boot in with glee.When are people going to wake up to the fact that all these radio guys care about is ratings and the "outrage"just increases those ratings for these people.As for for the PM being upset about the comments,she knows how to play the game all too well.If she was really upset by them she wouldn't have let the "Lou Costello Gang"drag it on for so long.And Catherine Deveny,does anybody take that woman seriously,saying things about Bindi Irwin the way she did should have been enough to convince people of her childish mental state.

gTs:

Barrie your points are well made, and, I hope, the usual anti-ABC ranters will concede there is some balance in this opinion piece.

Personally I would like to see a little more attempt at balance in the opinion pieces of the more right wing commentators but doubt it will happen anytime soon.

Overall the media 'problem' is not one of media peoples' bad intentions but of our expectations. We forget media people have to see themselves as entertainers. They are not on the airwaves or in print to deliver fact and/or reasoned opinion, rather they are part of the ratings drive to keep an audience and deliver revenue to their empoyers.

I fear there will be no turning back of the clock. Why show some basic respect for our country's highest office holders when it is so easy to get a ratings surge by being outrageous? Since the numbers are in the lowest common denominator, why try to appeal to the well educated when you can much more easily inflame the masses and keep the larger audience?

Lethal:

05 Oct 2012 8:54:44am

My observation is that many people enter a discussion (argument) totally committed to "win" it and it ain't going to happen.I had an epiphany a few years back - if you are in a discussion with someone diametrically opposed to you, you are just not going to convince them irrespective of the veracity of your, no doubt, well researched facts.All you can hope for is some understanding of your point of your view and, if you can achieve that, that's a win.This is where I got frustrated with Deveny on "Go Back To Where You Come From"; bludgening people into submission doesn't work and she just doesn't get it.Of course most of the statements you refer to above, including and probably particularly Jones, are targeted at their specific audience.

Lou:

05 Oct 2012 8:55:56am

Labor ministers linking Tony Abbott to Alan Jones in this context is neither lacking in civility, nor ham-fisted. Tony Abbott's discourse on the Prime Minister has been as hateful as Jones', as evidenced by his routine trotting out of the pejorative 'liar' against her (an incredibly loaded and aggressive term). Tony Abbott also benefits from Alan Jones' partisan, hopelessly subjective, venomous rants. Tony Abbott now has his wife out there defending him. Please. This man is an expert manipulator, and should he have not entered politics, would have been able to give Jones a run for his money in the grubby world of shock jocks. What is noteworthy is the poise with which the PM has responded to Jones' revolting comments. If other people want to defend her, cudos to them. That may be a worthy - and moral - motivation, not necessarily a political one.

jeffpc:

05 Oct 2012 8:56:01am

Alan Jones comments would have been rude and insenstive if they were true. But the fact that he used outright lies and fantasy to be rude and insensitive just makes it completely galling. Jones has taken his lead from Hannity and Beck in the USA where shock jock politics is about attacking your opponents with pure fantasy. Luckily for Jones (like Hannity and Beck) he can rely on the almost complete naivete of his audience and their lack of interest in checking out the veracity of his statements. My forlorn hope is that Australians will begin to see that Jones is a serial inventor of fantastical lies and that this is just one of the many. He treats the truth with disdain. Unfortunately the public (and pundits) seem to be more upset at him about his insensitivity, as if attacking an Australian prime minister using complete lies is OK at other times.

Immaculate Misconception:

05 Oct 2012 9:00:11am

Jones and his ilk are contemptuous buffoons and while ever the sun rises and sets they will be an unpleasant odour wafting across the airwaves,if people choose to listen and ingest their bile so be it.

The delicious irony of this whole episode is that it was triggered and transcribed by News Ltd,a great example of Jones getting hit by friendly fire,and not by one of these phantom dirt units we constantly hear about.

Anybody who really thinks that if the situation was reversed and it was Abbott or one of his crew who was subject to the disgraceful ramblings such as this from a loser like Jones that there wasnt some level of political fisticuffs alongside of the inevitable public revulsion they really should get out more.

Mog57:

05 Oct 2012 9:05:50am

I have worked with death and dying and peoples grief from when I was a teenager. Yes, Jones' use of the death of the PM's dad for political tittilation of the young in the Liberal group was the nadir of conversation in Australia.You can bring up examples of others use of abuse and foulness in the past but nothing surpasses this Liberal party.I believe that Howard as PM unleashed onto our landscape the real hatred of the conservative and right winger and Abbott has fanned that bushfire for his own benefit.It is amusing to hear the Abbott supporters coming out and whinging about the attacks on him.Abbott is a a bully, a biffo boy who has gotten away with far too much in the past, there is always a reckoning I am sure he understands that.

fj:

05 Oct 2012 9:08:35am

The most polite thing I can say about Deveney is that it's a mystery to me how she ever gets into print. I'd always thought of her as the Andrew Bolt of the left - equally thoughtless, just as constantly in 'I'm vicitmised for my outspokenness' mode, but with the added urge to be seen as a comedian.

aelious:

05 Oct 2012 9:13:54am

what more can be said but this <<<<Alan Jones is close to Abbott.>>>>> hmmmm Birds of a feather do!! He (Jones) "has tried and failed to win pre-selection for the Liberal Party." wonder why this is so??? Why do the Liberals his ever so good mates NOT want him in Parliament???What life would Abbott have as PM after a Liberal win???... short!!!!

worrierqueen:

So what's your pint Barry? That we should just let him say whatever outrageous nonsense he wants to?

You write this:

"A dozen words of condemnation and then hundreds more arguing the other mob are just as bad or worse."

and then

"And then I checked out the September issue of their magazine - Sheilas - to discover the feature columnist was Catherine Deveny. It described her as redoubtable (formidable; worthy of respect or honour). It is hardly necessary to go through the long list of "abusive language" attributed to Deveny over the years. All week, that has been well documented.

Suffice to record she tweeted in June of her former editor, Paul Ramadge: "I wish him arse cancer.""

Trekka:

markd:

05 Oct 2012 3:45:36pm

Yes mate Adams and Jones dont get on but I have never heard Adams say anything even remotely as dispicable as the comments by Jones!The comment about Jones heart is exactly that, a comments about Jones, NOT a childish, disgusting, crule rant against the Leader of the Opposition was it.

Gerd:

05 Oct 2012 9:18:13am

The Alan Jones ?thing? is of course symptomatic for the ranting on ?that side?: They haven?t got anything else to discuss, really; there is very little lead given by the opposition, they have no policies (except the ?turn the boats around? and a couple of other slogans). We (incl. their supporters) cannot see what exactly they would do in government, we have to rely on guesswork. Therefore, their supporters have to simply ape their politician leaders in finding any kind of fault with the government, a government that has initiated many good things in the last two years or so. So, Barrie, what policies or policy differences should people talk about? There IS no alternative that can be discussed! We can only consider one side?s progressive legislation, and cannot weigh these items up against any alternatives. The result is that people ?on the other side? do not know what to say, really, and many such people obviously need to say SOMETHING --- and rather than keeping stumm, they attack the government ?below the belt? (as Alan Jones did, as we saw). Again, too often, the lead to such trash is given by opposition politicians (the people who did not make it into government last time?). And I am pretty sure that C. Pyne will be aped in some of the next posts here and elsewhere. Did he not accuse Kevin Rudd of hypocrisy a couple of days ago, when saying that Rudd, a few years ago, had tried ?hard? to get onto Alan Jones? show? How could this possibly be a sign of hypocrisy? That might have happened two or more years ago, before all that ?water full of bile had flown under the bridge? ? when Alan Jones and other media were less spiteful and so full of hatred. Pyne could simply have disassociated himself from Jones this time; but no, in the absence of anything sensible in the opposition?s policies, he HAD to try to make a political point?And now, Shebs, Dave, Andie, Christopher (it might be you after all?) ? go on and answer with more hate mail!

Gerd:

05 Oct 2012 3:43:39pm

Forrest Gardener, you might be 'on the money' here. But it was about time, the government stopped doing all this hard work, and got a week's holiday, don't you think? Even you and I have a 'smoko' during work hours sometime, don't we? (I'm a bit ashamed to admit this...)Anyway, of course I agree that whoever could 'milk' this thing, did. But something like this is not exclusive to the Labor Party; they all do it, wouldn't you agree?

Kate Emerson:

05 Oct 2012 9:20:20am

Today the Telegraph has finally and forever done away with journalism and run a several page story on Abbott the wonderful family man which would best have appeared in the Woman's Day. His wife tells what a wonderful husband and father he is and how he's a real 'softy'. It's revealed that at one point she had a miscarriage and that Tony shed a tear. Usual columns have also been removed to make way for Margie Abbott to write a piece in her own words as well (well, the words of an Abbott publicist at any rate) to further sing her husband's praises. There is also a picture of the PM's face transposed onto someone wearing a military uniform with a swell of asylum seeker boats behind her labelled Julia's Armada. Craig Thomson who at this time is not implicated in the arrest of Williamson is also lucky enough to have his photo alongside the other guy. To top it off Margie is making a personal appearance today. Actually, to top it off I got my free Daily Telegraph with takeaway coffee at a McDonald's drive through. All this makes me think that Abbott and the Libs must be getting pretty worried. This is all relevant to Barry's article and also to the Tim Dunlop article from yesterday. Somewhere along the line this country has jumped the shark when a party political pamphlet passes for news and we are more worried about Alan Jones than saving the Great Barrier Reef or making rational decisions about human rights.

Lou:

05 Oct 2012 9:58:35am

Spot on Kate. Clearly Abbott is worried, but when major newspapers step in to do a politician's propaganda work for him, it is Australians who should be worried. Why do people tolerate this? No matter which side of politics a person supports, he/she should be capable of recognising that this blatant pursuit of a political agenda by Murdoch's stable is an affront to the dignity and intelligence of the Australian public.

Kate Emerson:

05 Oct 2012 4:47:49pm

How has anyone gone too far Forrest? No one is denigrating Abbott. At this moment, after some pretty bad gaffs and now the Alan Jones fiasco the Liberals are obviously a bit nervous. The PM has been called a witch, a bitch, been informed that there's a target on her forehead. Don't you remember a few years ago when Abbott said that she had a 's***-eating grin'?Senator Heffernan called her 'barren.' She was called 'one dimensional' by George Brandis because she isn't a parent, Grahame Morris (formerly a John Howard aid) said she ought to be kicked to death, etc, etc. There are hundreds of these which she has never spoken of herself. So, no...you don't have a leg to stand on.

Pun:

05 Oct 2012 4:14:22pm

Mrs Abbott seems to have missed the point. that Tony will not be legislating for his family, for his personal private, domestic sphere,but for the whole country.So his attitude towards his family is irrelevant and uninteresting to the rest of us who will be bound by any laws he intends to introduce, whether women or otherwise.

As for Gillard and the Armada, wasn't the defeat of the Armada another red-headed leader's finest hour, making any intended criticism of Gillard by analogy wrongfooted?

Kate Emerson:

phantom:

05 Oct 2012 9:20:34am

"First, the reporting inevitably meant the public had to endure dozens of replays of the sordid remark"

Surely the point should be that Julia Gillard had to endure hearing the remark for the first time. The remark was in very bad taste, but was made in a (semi) private gathering, and it is very unlikely that the Prime Minister would have ever heard of it if not for the journalistic revelation. Jonathan Marshall must bear at least part of the blame if Ms Gillard was offended or upset. And then she was subjected to endless repetition (assuming that she had nothing better to do - like ruling the country) than listening to or reading the mass of commentary.

If we care for someone's feelings, we should not repeat such ridiculous statements - and isn't that what Jones claims he was doing, repeating something he had heard?

Miowarra:

05 Oct 2012 10:10:50am

No blame whatsoever should attach to Marshall, the reporter in question.He did what reporters are supposed to do, which is to investigate and report.

That he reported; -the vileness of Jones, one of the senior Liberal party figures,-the laughter of the assembled Liberal party juniors at that vileness,-the fact that shadow ministers of the Liberal party who hope to be involved in running the nation at some time in the future remained in support of Jones's vileness, is to be praised rather than condemned.

That he contradicted Jones's later excuses that the meeting was under "Chatam House Rules", that an attempt was made to identify and exclude journalists and was "private", further revealed Jones's general untrustworthiness on matters of fact, is a bonus.

I hope that Marshall is eligible (being a Kiwi) for consideration for a Walkeley Award.

OUB :

Enough Please:

05 Oct 2012 9:22:05am

Bulldust Barrie. The public reaction was spontaneous and had started long, long before any Labor politician had been sightedI know it bursts your journo's ego bubble Barrie but we can think for ourselves

Reinhard:

05 Oct 2012 9:23:25am

Barrie it's not so much that the conversation isn't very good, more that it's not what we ordered. What I ordered was civil discourse where opposing views are debated in a mature manner. The hung parliament and minority govt changed all that and though Labor can't wash their hands entirely, it is the Opposition that must take responsibility for setting the tone, with spiteful point scoring on a massive scale. Tony Abbott's "world longest dummy spit" with his media minions in tow pushes the same ridiculous line every day, a fully competent and legitimate govt is somehow illegitimate , (only because they say so) and cheap shots and personal attacks are the entree du jour.

OUB :

05 Oct 2012 5:41:26pm

Damn, and I thought Jones was just the MC. Now I discover a whole generation of potential Liberal Party ministers was actually sitting at his feet absorbing every scintillating word, enraptured. Oh well, I guess the grown-ups can just junk this batch of unfeeling, unthinking Gen Zedders and start again next year. Now where can they dispose of them thoughtfully? I know! ALP branches are crying out for bodies around the nation. We can just rest them there. Given their flawed characters they should be able to pass unnoticed.

Walter:

05 Oct 2012 9:31:53am

This whole Alan Jones issue has been hysterically overdone by left leaners. It is only an issue because he is Alan Jones. The Bob Ellis comment was in even less taste, yet the outrage there is barely mentioned. Hypocricy of the highest order.

But what God taketh, God giveth. Alan Jones was yeterday given a wonderful gift. Michael Williamson.

Picture this, a former Labor National President and Union powerhouse is finally charged for serious corruption offences against those who trusted him. Williamson was a father figure amongst the Labor faithful. How many in the Government voted for him to be their National President.

How many carbuncled clones has Williamson spawned within the Labor party. How rife is corruption within the union movement. Who knew or at least suspected his activities. Who has been covering for him. "You can't get me for I'm in the union" has been the culture in the union movement. Now lets put that to the test.

Davo:

lazarus:

05 Oct 2012 3:59:32pm

Why? Is anyone on the Lib supporters side showing any sort of respect with their comments. If he wants to call walter wally it probably suits him as he is being a bit of a wally using the 5 year old's line of "but they done it too, and even worser so why am I in trouble".

Spinning Topsy:

05 Oct 2012 5:04:19pm

*Jones is not even a member of the Liberal Party. *...wishing it was so doesn't make it so. Jones is a member of the Liberal party and has stood for pre-selection several times. In the 70's he stood for election in Earlwood for the liberal Party and lost.

zaftig:

05 Oct 2012 9:38:36am

"Then as the week progressed, social media went to work pressuring advertisers to inflict a big penalty on Jones. Gerry Harvey called them the "lynch mob" but then again, if he really felt that way, why did he join them?" Was this a rhetorical question Barry? It is pretty obvious that when the "economic rationalist" and "market forces" propaganda returns to bite them on the bum, bean counters and spin paramedics woke up to see that this is more than just a bit of media indigestion in a civil society.

I suggest that there is also a great deal of evidence within social media discussions that many people are demanding a shift from any further proliferation of this sort of fear mongering hate speech being pushed as syndicated content over broadcast radio, TV and internet streaming. I agree with the comments regarding attempts to further the game of "political point scoring" has been cheapened to very damaging levels regarding our civil society. I do not agree that there is any comparison between the spread of Alan Jones and other shock jock vile reductionism of current complex that those "welded on listeners" might avail themselves of and pay for access to The Australian or some "commentators" blog posting. WE ARE ALL CULPABLE IN THE SHREDDING OF OUR NATIONAL NARRATIVE AND CAN ALSO CHANGE THIS!!

ken:

05 Oct 2012 9:38:45am

Noone seems to have addressed the role of the media in blowing up and sustaining this story. Just as the media wallow in natural disasters so they leapt, with glee, on Jones' remarks.No question, Jones went too far. But the media storm added to any distress Gillard may have felt and did Jones little harm - rather reinforced his image as a hater of anything Labor.And the ABC was right in there wallowing with the rest of the media. Jones being Jones is not news. The media are NOT the message.

jeremy andrews:

05 Oct 2012 9:40:21am

I was baffled that firstly so many think this remark not bad (there was no 'probably', but a categorical statement), secondly there's the assumption that only Labor voters would condemn it and thirdly that people don't see that the whole tone of a Liberal event including the chaff-bag auction and 'go harder' would be associated with the Liberal Party.Tony Abbott has talked about kinder language - he didn't mention baseless cliches and slogans unfortunately. Even here we still have the same old type of 'shafted' mantra that we've heard ad nauseam, that didn't stop after JG's conclusive win in a leadership spill.People invoke freedom of speech for Alan Jones but try to silence his critics. However the hypocrisy of people who 'fight' with name-calling and other apalling remarks such as digs about sexuality and cancer are shocking too, part of the same problem. For me his remark just illustrated the depths political 'debate'has sunk to. I hoped it would make people stop and think but nothing changed, unless we now see an end to the ridiculous 'lie/shafted/worst government' propaganda style. Perhaps being associated with this cruel statement might help people to hold back. I still hope for improvement, but the best things to come of it for me were well over 100,000 giving AJ a slap on the wrist and hearing Mike Williams complain about attacks on comments made in what he called 'the privacy of Alan's speeches'.

Disraeli:

05 Oct 2012 9:41:55am

Theres been a fair bit of crtiticism-discussion over recent months about the 'quality' of political debate . Frankly, I used to consider that criticism along the lines of 'blah-blah'. After all, political debate should be robust and inevititably quite personal. Parliamentary Question time ? Pathetic and cliche-like talk of 'worse than a school playground' fails to see the strength of our parliament. Question Time is great.

BUT ... this recent debacle of arising from Alan Jones (not a member of the Liberal Party) is certainly a true media circus. The media has allowed the politicians to beat up what is a nothing issue. The media has been led by the nose , again, by the ALP spin merchants.

This is where the political debate falls into a quagmire. Political spin merchants decide that issues such as Mental Health, Education, Defence, Foreign Affairs, are not winning in the polls. So? Get the media talking about real issues. Attack Abbott! With a bit of luck he'll have to respond and maybe get his wife to tell the truth about him.

MG:

To me this is an issue which is about what is acceptable from nation cultural value, not political sides

Yes politicians are involved and their behaviours are both symptomatic and causal of directions of our nations moral compass.

My concern is that this behaviour is accepted and thats it builds upon its self, creating "radicalised" separation of groups and damages inclusiveness If you line up over time behaviours of Alan Jones and others in the media who gain profit from creating this culture of bullying and isolation, as well as other public figures (sport, politics, whatever) who create/sustain this type of behaviour, you need to question our future direction and the damage that it is doing to our national values.

People can and should be allowed to take a position and a side, but not at this cost. Respect and tolerance should not be abused by those who have a positions of power and influence.

Sure this was in said in private, however maybe this is a positive opportunity to hold a mirror to our nations morality and direction and consider where this is leading and what is healthy for our community.

"Gina Rinehart passed away yesterday after a long battle with cancer / after a long battle with the directors of Fairfax / after a long battle with anorexia (laughter) / after a long battle with Matthew Newton. Despite her wealth, she insisted the Australian people paid for a state funeral. A memorial was attended by those who loved her. (Just one miner being prompted by thugs)."

David Marr: I didn't welcome Gina Rinehart taking over Fairfax, but she was an important Australian and deserved a commemorative edition. And if we'd had any staff left that's exactly what we would have done.

Morrow: Gina Rinehart will be laid to rest in an open-cut grave, then dug up and sold to China. (Laughter, cheers.)

about the death from cancer of Gina Rinehart: "Gina Rinehart will be laid to rest in an open-cut grave, then dug up and sold to China."

Davo:

05 Oct 2012 11:49:12am

Fantastic piece Viking and a shame it is not at the top of the comments. But of course it is quite acceptable for the ABC to attack Ms Reinhardt because she represents absolutely everything the left resent. All in good fun after all !! Maybe we should expect a week of articles on THE DRUM springing to her defence.

Spinning Topsy:

05 Oct 2012 1:53:05pm

Didn't see the Chaser piece but if it's quoted correctly it is entirely tasteless however, the difference is that the Chaser boys were not speaking at a party political event, they are not representatives of a particular political party and they are not, to the best of my knowledge, confidant's of the aspiring Prime Minister of this country.

Reinhard:

Macko:

05 Oct 2012 10:11:26am

I don't know A Jones, living in Melbourne, I have never heard him on the radio. His comment was appalling and he needed to apologise. But his comment was made "between four walls". The PM and the Gillard family could not hear it and could not be hurt by it. The hurt delivered to the PM, to her family and to the whole world was by the reporter and the publisher. They caused the hurt.I hope they apologise to the PM and her family. An apology is overdue.

dave3:

Yoda:

05 Oct 2012 10:19:15am

It is interesting how one side or the other seeks to "justify" its sins/ sinners by pointing to the sins/ sinners on the other side. So we get 'What Allan Jones said was terrible but what about what Ellis said?"

The fact is the with freedom, including freedom of speech comes a responsibility to act decently. It is not a licence for bullying,smirching characters, or cruelty in any shape or form.We cannot stop indecent behaviour through regulation- there will always be street, political, economic. media and other bullies-- what may is the reaction of you and I. Thousand and thousands of Australians have told Jones his behaviour is not acceptable.Thousands marched through a Melbourne suburbs calling for peace and safety in the streets; thousands have criticised the behaviour in parliament.When good people remain silent is when the crooks, bullies and tryants take over.

mike:

05 Oct 2012 2:22:25pm

Its not to justify it, its to point out the utter hypocrisy. Anti-Labor moron Jones gets pilloried for his insensitive, idiotic comment while pro-Labor moron Ellis's similarly insensitive and idiotic comments on the death of Gillard's father get steadfastly ignored by the Left and the love media.

Yoda:

Greg:

05 Oct 2012 10:28:59am

Meanwhile the Prime Minister has turned her back with exemplary dignity on Jones and the whole sorry business. You might have found room to acknowledge as much.As for the remark that "Labor ministers charged in one after another telling you exactly how outraged you ought to be," I have heard several of them speaking on the matter, and none of them doing that. Most of them -- Bob Carr is a case in point -- were responding to questions from journalists who clearly can't get enough of the matter.If the charge is continuing to talk about the matter, then Barrie I think there is plenty of hypocrisy in your article.

Greg:

05 Oct 2012 11:59:12am

Right, gillard has only allowed swan, roxon and the rest to her cabinet to seek some sort of politicial advantage by attempting to connect abbott to jones comments. I have a question, why hasn't the prime minister put a stop to ministers using this to bash abbott. remember abbott did not make the comments.

Bob42:

05 Oct 2012 5:35:13pm

Greg, Abbott has form for using this type of attack, remember when he declared that Peter Garret was personall responsible for the death of a young insulation fitter. Abbott leads and Jones follows in his footsteps, the difference is that Abbott was devious enough to make the claim under Parliamentary Privelege.

JMJ:

05 Oct 2012 10:32:47am

Barrie, in respect to Tony Abbott, most Australians would agree that he struggles with telling the 'truth'. On several occasions Abbott has been caught out saying one thing & only later to recant after being caught out telling hugh whoppers. And when Abbott says 'all politicians lie', he is in fact trying to bring decent politicians down to his grubby standards. Parliament would be better off without the Abbott's of this world.

Ian:

05 Oct 2012 10:34:09am

The ABC's obsession with Alan Jones continues. How many articles is this now? Amazing that this should be sparked by about 10 seconds worth of bile from Jones, but not so surprising perhaps in light of the years of resentment and recriminations between the ABC lovies and western Sydney bogans.

What most of the posters here don't seem to realise is that Jones doesn't care what you think. He's grateful for all the free publicity you've generated, but as far as he's concerned, the role of the ABC set is to be held up to ridicule for the entertainment of his core audience. I realise that this causes resentment, and perhaps explains the obsession on show here at The Drum this week, but as long as he's got his core audience in hand (he does and you're not part of it) he's happy. being able to portray himself to his audience as a victim is a bonus. His sponsors will either stay with the station, or be replaced with others wanting to feed off their ratings. In the end, they don't really care what you think either.

The other thing that many on here fail to realise is that once criticism of a bogan hero like Jones goes past a certain point, it serves to lock in his audience. If you don't get that, think about how you feel about his criticism of the Prime Minister, and turn it around. That's how they feel, and the sense of solidarity generated here by all the outrage has its mirror image in the west. It didn't take Jones's audience long to start believing that their hero was being (in their eyes) unfairly treated. If they don't see the hypocrisy of commentary denigrating Jones and giving Catherine Deveney for instance a free pass, then you can be sure it will be pointed out to them.

In the end, as Shakespeare said, it's all sound and fury signifiying nothing. To mix metaphors, when two tribes go to war .....

phb:

"First, the reporting inevitably meant the public had to endure dozens of replays of the sordid remark."

And this is why I find the actions of the journalist who 'leaked' discussions at the Young Liberals conference irresponsible, offensive and self serving.

The journalist knew that the remark was inappropriate and would offend Gillard and family in relation to the loss of Gillard senior. The comments were made behind closed doors an not in the public domain. It is the journalist that created the offense by disclosing to the public comments made by Jones.

If I was attending a closed Liberal, National, Labor or Green?s party event and heard a statement from a guest speaker whose views may not represent the party holding the event, I would not be releasing these as it is a breach of trust and creates an issue which should not be released to the public.

The media has tried to crucify Jones and the LNP over the issue, when in fact they should be questioning the integrity and ethics of the journalist involved.

It is also worth noting that the media and MPs were part of the problem and not part of the solution in relation to the inappropriate disclosure. Their own actions caused the reaction within the public and not Jones? comments persay. If they were not released by the journalist, no offense would have been caused.

This is disgraceful behaviour of those who thought they could get political mileage or used the disclosure to serve their own interests. Enough said and time to move on.

Philby:

05 Oct 2012 11:45:10am

Do you not think these sort of views and behaviour such as selling a coat made of chaffe bags ar ein the public interest to know? I would like to know what people who want us to follow them really feel.

phb:

No, it falls into the same category of why should be know that unsavory jokes or comments that a celebrity or politician makes...what a Catholic politician says in confession and such like.

The release of the information was not in the public or Prime Minister's interest, just in the interest of the journalists self promotion. It is also important to differentiate between in the public interest and what is interesting to the public. It is that later that applies here.

The actions of the journalist is a breach of trust, breach of privacy and are vexatious towards the PM. I would expect that the PM and family has suffered enormous grief and emotional stress as a direct result of the journalists actions. Such grief/stress would not otherwise have been caused. Jones has been embroiled as a result of the unethical, unprofessional actions and self promotion of the journalist in question.

lazarus:

05 Oct 2012 4:09:57pm

You would question the ethics and integrity of those in the room who did not pull him up straight away, which was all of those in attendance.

From the reports it would seem they all found it a jolly jape which would say something about the fitness for office of 3 serving Liberal MPs and the future cadre of Liberal MPs who were in attendance.

A chaff bag coat to be auctioned as well, good to see Woolies distanced themselves from their employee straight away.

Jono:

05 Oct 2012 10:47:26am

Actually I find the reactions worse than the inituial comment those on the left are using Jones comment for party political, by linking Tony Abbott with this the Gillard government should be utterly ashamed of themselves. But I suppose they do not have much else. But I suppose this helps Gillard before she stopped going on Jones's show because she was a coward, know she can not go on Jones's show because of his comments. Like it or not Jones will not go away and he has more supporters out there than you think.

MDG:

05 Oct 2012 12:34:58pm

Gillard reaches more people every time she goes on Q&A than Jones reaches in a week and Gillard has been on Q&A what, twice now? Compared to Abbott's...never? I think it's clear who the coward is when it comes to media interviews. Abbott avoids anything but foot massages from mates like Jones and Karl S. When he gets up his courage to do anything else you get some disaster like his Mark Riley-induced catatonia or the train wreck he got himself into with Leigh Sales.

Peter of Perth:

05 Oct 2012 11:03:27am

I, like most fair minded people think that Jones did certainly go overboard with his comments and has apologised, several times however, let's not forget that Jones was actually at a gathering of people who had paid to attend in a private capacity at a private gathering and the journalist that reported his comments had gained admittance by misrepresenting himself as a student and paid the student's admittance price. Also, I don't think too many people are still unaware that Labor are out to get as much mileage out of this as they can and how many times over the last year or so have we all been subjected to disgusting statements by various Labor Ministers etc dragging Abbott's life down into the gutter and how much did they 'support' Rudd earlier this year? Throwing dirt is all Labor have left and even that will backfire big time on them and so it should, simply because they are not up to the job of government because their mindset is too shallow and juvenile, and dishonest.

prison:

05 Oct 2012 6:28:07pm

The way I see it is the general population has had enough of the anti Gillard abuse and false accusations and now some people are fighting back. Personally i beleive the Government should have been fighting fire with fire a long time ago especially with regards to combating the misinformation regarding carbon & mining taxes given by the Coalition.

Jones's apology was rediculous. It was a hollow third person analysis of events, NOT an apology. It was a disgrace and his undeniable hate for Gillard and the Labor party was impossible for him to conceal.

So now we have both sides of politics descending to gutter politics, I would suggest that the next election will probably be detirmined by who descends into the dirt the least. You can see the Tone of Abbott recently that he has backpeddled a lot once realising this. In contrast, The Labor party has realised that it may have to get dirty itself to point out the hypocricy of the Liberals.

MY view is that 2 party politics is destroying us and we need to change.

John of WA:

ellicatsays:

05 Oct 2012 11:13:11am

Bad thing to say. Tasteless jibe.No-one believes anyone can die from shame.Jones was unlucky it got recorded and broadcast.I've heard much worse said about Gillard in private.Complete over-reaction by those that like to feel shocked and sickened by such comments (except for when it comes from their side). Also those that like to make political mileage from such things.

People may want to look at the world outside their cotton wool.

No sympathy for the devil. The media will determine when this issue goes away.

Goanna:

05 Oct 2012 11:38:36am

@JohnM ... The sort of reaction you could expect from a Coalition supporter. Unable to live in a world with free speech and looking forward to the day the Coalition represses it. Unfortunately for you the internet and social media has radically changed the picture, and MSM's control of the political agenda has been smashed forever.

prison:

05 Oct 2012 6:38:15pm

they only brought up free speech as a means of defending their most right wing extremists such as Bolt and Jones. Obviously they don't beleive in it - it is a smokescreen.

Free speech has been dead for over a hundred years where corporate interests bought out all of the media outlets in the US and UK with those interests still being served today. Liberal voters seem to be clueless that they support this!. For a recent example which indicates what really happens behind the scenes and comparable to a child stumbling when playing with a new toy, Look at how Gina failed to keep her attempt at control over Fairfax secretive. What she did wrong was to not do so via a 3rd party like a J.P.Morgan etc.

I am distressed by many of the comments on forums these days as the degree of brainwashing and manuplation and lies that people have been fed and accept becomes apparent.

ScottBE:

05 Oct 2012 11:14:45am

It is fascinating to watch everyone gather around a school punch up. Watching someone getting a beating always brings out the worst in people. Those on the sidelines chant "hit 'im" and imagine themselves throwing the punches, while others stand a little away tut-tutting and decrying the bashing of an innocent while refusing to come to the victims aid. Rarely will any try to intervene and stop the bashing.

"Basic civility." doesn't exist. People listen to Jones because they love to see/hear the flogging. They get excited. It allows them to feel right about being angry and hate those whom they consider at fault. This is the outcome of unregulated "Free Speech". Would the spectators/audience be so considerate if the victim had been an Imam advocating the removal of western forces from Afghanistan? Or perhaps a drunken Alice Springs resident roaring about the invaders? We may feel more inclined to get into the bashing if it were someone with a more justified or righteous argument. But Alan Jones is "one of us" and so the argument has more to do with "basic civility" than disgust.

The news media operates in the same way as Mr Jones. They reiterate and righteously rant just the same as he. And we all stand round chanting "Hit 'Im..."

T-bot:

Good post. I agree with your concepts as to certain elements of human behaviour.

May I put to you that 'basic civility' does indeed exist but is in short supply and is not very common amongst media people.

Civility is rare to begin with. Not everyone has it. Someone needs to have a 'talent' in it, then that needs to be identified, then it needs to be developed over a long period of time, with close guidance, great focus and effort, much like one's professional trade skills or physical fitness. Like the skills of a great sportperson, such skills need to be learnt, developed and maintained. And similarly, such skills can be lost. If you don't keep training, or competing, or working at something, you lose your skills.

I think many people have lost their skills in civility or never had them in the first place. Civility takes time. Civility takes compassion. Civility takes empathy. Civility takes effort. All of which, it may be argued, are in somewhat short supply these days.

I don't think many people know what civility is. They don't know how to be nice to people. They don't know how to sooth a situation or create harmony. They don't know how to be peaceful or gracious. They don't know how to relate to people or co-operate. And I think, for many people, they never did know and they never will. Which is fine and normal, but that's not to say that it's not still out there.

In relation to the existence of civility in the estate, I don't think there's alot of it in there. I don't think civility merges well with their their opiate, if you will, being 'drama'. Civility tends to be a bit boring and sensible. It's not exciting or 'dramatic'. Civility is patient. Kind. Thoughtful. It's a bit too quiet and unassuming for their tastes I think. So the estate just can't seem to generate it. Plus, I don't think the type of people who populate the estate have the personality or skills in civility to have it, at all, let alone the reserves required to transfer it to their audience.

So, all of a sudden, "we're" "all" uncivil.

For starters, I don't think "they" speak for us (I put their number at about 120000, which is roughly the number of registered twitter users in AS) and secondly, I think they're talking to themselves.

So, may I suggest that the problem isn't that civility doesn't exist, it's just that it's not encouraged much and there's not much of it in media land.

Kev:

05 Oct 2012 11:25:11am

This is quite an interesting social phemonemon. Since Jones made his remarks 68 sponsors have abandoned his show and Macquarie National Radio's share price has slipped 16%. Whether you call it a mob or justified retribution, it's an amazing display of people power. Many people feel Jones has never been held to account having avoided a sentence after his criminal conviction, received a slap on the wrist after 'cash for comments' and still has vast influence after his inaccurate comments on climate change. So I expect there is a bit of payback going on.

Raskul:

05 Oct 2012 11:30:14am

Jones' initial comment was part of his usual bout of verbal diarrhoea. He repeated the condition when giving his apology. Unfortunately, the problem seemed to infect many other people who dignified his vile comments with their responses. The only sensible response is that given by Gillard. Ignore the creep.

Jude:

05 Oct 2012 11:35:39am

Read an article by Catherine Deveny a few weeks ago. It surprised me. All I had been read of her previously, were some of her more in your face tweets repeated by right wingers such as Andrew Bolt and being used to smear the left. Personally, while being of a leftish bent, those tweets would make me shy away from her at parties if I didn't already know her (which I don't, just a general observation) and knew what sort of person she was.

Anyway, having being exposed to the tweets, the article surprised me in how good it was. Having seen the tweets I wasn't expecting such a good read. I had probably previously avoided reading her. So maybe people with lots of brains are selling themselves a little short if they then put out stuff like ''arse cancer'' publicly. I think Ms Deveny though, would probably say she didn't care a F about other people's opinions on her, which is her right and will just do her own thing regardless without stress.

Felonious Monk:

05 Oct 2012 11:38:52am

Unfortunately vicious, arrogant, insensitive bullies will always be with us. Even more unfortunately, some of them, like Jones, Sandilands and Bolt, make a great deal of money by acting as vicious, arrogant, insensitive bullies.

There is only one response the bullies do not like. Ignore them. Don't dignify their rubbish with a response. Deny them the oxygen they so desperately need.

Homer:

05 Oct 2012 11:50:41am

This is all very jolly - comments along party lines and all that. Lovely to see some right-leaning correspondents. But have you asked yourselves gang as you get all hot and bothered about Julia Gillard's lying...how honest is Tony Abbott, and why doesn't Jones complain about his continual porkies?

Personally I'm more offended by Jones calling Moslems 'vermin'. This backlash might make him wake up to himself, but somehow I think not.

Andrew McIntosh:

05 Oct 2012 11:51:54am

Come on, we all love it. I know I do. The self righteousness, the indignation, the name calling, the point scoring, the harumph-ing, that warm inner glow that comes from knowing you, and only you, are right and everyone else just doesn't get it, no matter how many times you re-use internet clich?s against them. Jones, his supporters, his detractors, columns like this, those of us posting on columns like this - this is how we know we're alive. It's all part of the great dance of inter-communication that we're all still getting used to, really, and it's as invigorating or annoying as we want it to be. Let the good vibes flow, and the bad ones as well.

Rob:

Anthony:

05 Oct 2012 12:06:59pm

I'm glad you singled out Catherine Deveny. Her long list of personal insults are probably worse than Jones. I recall her twitter straight after appearing on Q&A with Peter Dutton and saying he had the 'face of a rapist'. Yet the ABC has continued providing her a forum to build her profile. Despite her disgusting tweet of a fellow guest, Q&A has continued to invite her back onto the show, despite not adding anything to debate and been rude to other guests, who happen to have different opinions than hers.

Bluepoint:

05 Oct 2012 12:10:34pm

Call it partisanship if you like, but some of us prefer not to reward bullies or nasty pieces of work, whether it's with our consumer dollars or votes. Too bad if that creates a problem for the Liberal Party and its fellow travellers.

Mark:

05 Oct 2012 12:23:35pm

Catherine Deveny would *HATE* being compared to Alan Jones, and I'm so glad you had the guts to do it. I hadn't read that particular tweet, but Deveny has form for some of the nastiest comments on record. The right certainly doesn't have a monopoly on appalling rudeness.

MJMI:

You're right Barrie. It has been one of the most unedifying weeks in Australian politics that I can ever remember. It reflects no credit on anyone though Alan Jones did seem to be the worst offender.

All politicians from all parties should remember that we Australian voters are not stupid and can discern facts from fiction, spin from reality and integrity from gutter politics. Stop the hysteria and get on with governing is what I expect. Seems it might be too much for some to understand.

Goanna:

05 Oct 2012 12:31:41pm

"the Labor ministers charged in one after another telling you exactly how outraged you ought to be ... That over the top reaction simply served to unleash a torrent of material"

Barrie, sorry but your linkage here is just nonsense. The enormous public response to Alan Jones reaction is simply one of natural disgust to this odious man. Your comment disparages the natural reactions of a large portion of the population (whoever they vote for) to a person who made a highly offensive remark in relation to the PMs father during a time of mourning.

Pun:

05 Oct 2012 12:36:11pm

Some comments:

1. Aren't journalists to be commended, rather than subjected to third party hearsay, (which the linked opinion piece actually is, no matter how honourable said opinion writer may be)without their right of reply as to those comments being respected (basic journalistic fact checking), for shining a light on the activities of public figures at a meeting of young members of a amjor poilitcal party?Why the distancing use of language referring to the Otherness of thejournalist as a New Zealander, when any criticism of the act of reporting the Jones comment could, if valid, applied equally if the journalist was a Calthumpian Alien from Outer Space?

2. Nothing about the public reaction to Jones'comments changes the fact that Jones made the comments, made them not extra-murally, that is, made them within the context of a gathering of the politically like-minded younger members of a party hoping to form government at some point, not in aprivate settingg since universities are public-private institutions whose student members are bound by the University's rules of governance, including rules on harassment and discrimination ;

3. Telling the public to react more civilly only delays the inevitable conversation we need to have about both the use of mysoginistic hatred that is evident in the choice of language directed at a Prime Minister who happens to female and the lack of public education about politics, government in a representative and participatory democracy and constitutional affairs.Or are the public to leave these important aspects of citizenship to the "Insiders", both of the approved commentariat, whether they be jounalists, or those who think they alone have the necessary imprimatur to authorise comment on political matters, whether their privilege and access to opinion formation comes from wealth or membership of some established organisation? What happens to democracy and civil society when the many feel they have no voice?AT leats her, for the time being, we are not yet imprisoned or killed for commenting and reporting?

Andrew T:

Where to begin with this? It says so much about who we are as Australians. But it also says a lot about our leadership (which, of course, exist because we elect them).

In particular, I think this is quote is particularly telling:

"A dozen words of condemnation and then hundreds more arguing the other mob are just as bad or worse"

The above comment should never be accepted coming from anyone in a leadership role. It's a first class cop out one might expect from a child or an adult of weak character. Not a person who aspires to lead. Yet such comments often come from key figures who have a role in running the country. Not just in relation to Alan Jones, but a whole host of issues and from all sides of politics. But I won?t heap all the blame on our leaders. Nope. I reserve that for the culture / community that, over the years, have created such a dynamic by the way the vote and the media they consume.

Rashid:

05 Oct 2012 12:47:34pm

Thank God we don?t hear him in the WA.If Sydney people love him, it says a lot about them. All children Love a clown or a parade or even the long-nosed Pinocchio, but children do grow up. When will Sydneyites?

Me:

05 Oct 2012 12:50:39pm

Jones stock and trade is to rouse a lynch mob for his lords and masters.

Encouraging violent, irrational and grubby behaviour in others has blurred his judgement of aceptable behavior in contemporary Australian society. I'm sure he felt the topic was fair game at the time he made the comments.

Now his supportors ar crying poor mouth and trying to blame the victims of his disgusting campaigns for his sins.

Holly:

05 Oct 2012 1:05:54pm

The whole problem is the subject of the discourse. All the media seem capable of writing about is petty personal politics instead of policy.

Why waste one more minute on the Alan Jones saga when we have the Coalition running talking down the economy big time - and then shock horror the retail figures have slumped again. Why is Abbott allowed to get away with what amounts to economic treason?

Why is the media letting Joe Hockey get away with saying the NBN will cost $100 billion when this is patently untrue? The media stand by while Tony Abbott claims electricity bills have gone up 80% due to the Carbon tax and no journalist has the nous to ask him the questions which would require him to prove what he is saying.

Now we have the newspapers wall to wall with cloying domestic stories.

StrikesMe:

05 Oct 2012 1:11:14pm

On top of it all, I am moved to wonder what Gillard's father really did think of her lies, back-flips, double-talk etc. If he was a labor true believer, he would have loathed the same from business leaders and Liberal politicians. What about his own daughter? I suspect that this is what Jones was alluding to. He just shouldn't have said it so blatantly and in public (which is whenever strangers are within earshot).

GregL:

05 Oct 2012 1:44:40pm

The level of public debate in this country has been declining for a long time. It is no surprise that people are now asking "how have we reached this point?". All sides of politics have been guilty of increasingly personal vitriol, our newspapers and media are full of invective and social media goes off the dial as well. There seems to be an inability to debate an issue without resorting to personal abuse, a sure sign of an intellectual vaccum. Just look below.

I have never seen a sustained level of abuse as is in the "Juliar" campaign. In NSW the O'Farrell government reneged on a promise on shooting in national parks so that he could get legislation through the upper house and never did we see the term Barry O'Liar join the politcal vocabulary. Julia Gillard, because of the nature of the parliament after the line ball election, decides to go with climate change policies earlier than anticipated and what happens, all hell breaks out, but it is personal not about policy.

If this continues we will lose out in the end. The parliament will become a respositry for people with the thickest skins, the ones with the best heeled support, not people with the vision and courage that we need.

Sarah Capper:

05 Oct 2012 1:52:38pm

As the Editor of Sheilas, I would just like to make a few points:

- the article we published by Catherine Deveny in the September edition is a positive piece about raising emotionally articulate boys. It has been well recieved for the positive message it conveyed. Had Catherine written prose in our piece of the sort Barrie cites, we simply would not have published it.

- I referred to her as "redoubtable" which I take as simply meaning "formidable".

- As the disclaimer says on our homepage, we publish a range of views which don't necessarily reflect the views of the VWT. We will continue to publish a range of views. I reject the idea that feature writers must be "role models". Frankly, I would be more accepting of Barrie's comment if I saw evidence that the selection of all guests on Insiders were unambiguously deemed to be society's "role models".

Bev:

05 Oct 2012 4:02:03pm

I did visit your web site. I cannot say that your organization has an unbiased view of the world rather a radical/gendered feminist view and anything I read there reflects that (my opinion). As for "emotionally articulate boys" I see it as feminist code for "reprograming boys" to suit a extreme feminist view of the world.

Smoker of a Gun:

05 Oct 2012 1:54:23pm

Alan Jones was scripted what to say by The Liberal Party, courtesy of Colin Barnett who let K.Stokes, S.Weir out of jail 31 Sept 2011. A conspiracy to save Murdoch's asses.It's just that Alan Jones' program back fired on him & The Liberal Party.

The ABC needs to have a breakfast program which is Aust. - National. Start's at 6am EST and follows through with presenter's changing in Melb, Adelaide, NT, & WA as the time zones move into mid morning, almost lunch time, with real issues on topic, humor & debate.Not the Alan Jones 2GB crap, besides its limited to NSW.

VoterBentleigh:

05 Oct 2012 2:14:37pm

Thanks, Barrie. A thoughtful article. Role models should be chosen carefully; Catherine Deveny is a bad choice. On the issue of hypocrisy, if a person espousing a principle is hypocritical, this does not undermine the actual principle. Yet some commentary seems to assume this is the case. In addition, the abuse against Gillard was unprovoked. Most importantly, what bothers me is the increasing use of organized and systematic distribution of allegations and misinformation by the Opposition as a whole, which is aimed at presenting everything the the Government does as untrustworthy and a lie. The level of scrutiny of such propaganda by the media has been minimal. I am more worried by the people behind Mr. Abbott , including Joe Hockey and Andrew Robb who appear very far right in their views. To me, Mr. Abbott is a blank cheque on which the extreme right will be able to get anything they want.

Still, on the funny side, Christopher Pyne provided a new word for the Oxford dictionary with ?vomitous? (a Pynism; origin: Lib). I suspect he has been studying too many Latin verbs. Perhaps whoever loses the next election could proclaim: ?Pugna vomitna victi sumus? (with aologies to Livy)!

Harquebus:

05 Oct 2012 2:53:03pm

The worst role models are professional wrestlers followed closely by politicians. The people in my neighborhood watch the wrestling and don't listen to the likes of Alan Jones or politicians.My point is, this is only an issue for journalists. No one I know has even mentioned it.

RIVER:

05 Oct 2012 3:05:27pm

As many have posted with the Jones foot-in-mouth scenario, it is time for it to go away.

Today, I walked through a major shopping center up here, and a group of four boys approx 13/15 walked past me, what they yelled with explicit sexual conatations was pure filth, and they turned around and came back for more, a woman walking past with her Islander husband stopped and the Islander was called names for having a white wife, he took off after the kids and they nearly pooped and they ran.

But these are our children, and it's not the first time this has happened - just sitting in MacDonalds listening to groups of 13 and fourteen year olds that hang out there and their conversations would turn your stomache. Politicians and Shock Jocks aren't the only one's who are proud of playing the gutter snipe game to win points, but do our children really know what they are saying and putting out, God help their children is all I can say.

Michael:

05 Oct 2012 3:26:58pm

I always thought that Alan Jones listeners were all conservative males over 50 something who would never change their vote whatever so does anyone really think that Julia Gillard could care less what Alan Jones says?

Lou:

05 Oct 2012 4:09:58pm

I just love how many people who bash the ABC for being pro-Labor keep returning to read and post comments on ABC articles! If you think the ABC and its followers are so biased, do you think the anti-ABC posts are going to convert them?!And if not, then why do you keep returning to the ABC website?

rw:

Das Boot:

05 Oct 2012 5:52:48pm

Because it's our money. And if our money is being spent to fund a Marketing Department for the ACTU sponsored ALP, we believe it should be held accountable to all citizens, and not just those that subsist off the public purse.

gerald the gent:

05 Oct 2012 4:17:22pm

Hi johnM, I don't know if you noticed the last Newspoll which had the two parties at 50/50%, run by Murdoch Press and today they have a massive story about how lovely TA is in seven of their papers right across the country, obviously trying to sway the next Newspoll due out Monday.

rw:

05 Oct 2012 4:24:38pm

Tony Abbott helped create this monster, by attacking the PM personally rather than just her policies. Calling her ?liar? and then fronting a demonstration where placards calling her a witch were displayed.Alan Jones has aided and abetted these attitudes. What we are seeing now is a section of the electorate reacting and retaliating. Venting their spleens collectively. Not surprising. You reap what you sow, after all.

Emo:

05 Oct 2012 5:13:24pm

Why not say it as it is? If you are a labor supporter, you will be in high dudgeon about Jones' comments (but would be nodding your head in agreement if someone said the same if It was Abbott) and if you are a liberal supporter you will think they were perfectly reasonable, even if a bit edgey, but you probably wouldn't say it except in secure company because (a) you weren't smart enough to think of it yourself or (b) you wouldnt have the guts to say it. It is as simple as that. I think Jones was being quite funny actually. These are politicians we are talking about.

Cro-Mag:

I have never willingly listened to Alan Jones, I just avoid people who speak that way. Similarly, I would not watch or listen to any program that had Catherine Deveney on it.

Standards have fallen appallingly and the political opinions of speakers have no relationship with their willingness to spew hatred - it goes across the spectrum, left is as bad as right.

So I did have a good laugh at your article, describing a magazine seeking to improve respect in Australian politics and including Deveney as a columnist - perhaps they could also feature Kyle Sandilands in an edition devoted to improving civility?

Karma2u:

05 Oct 2012 5:18:41pm

Problem: TA slips in the polls as preferred PM even more The gap is narrowing with Labour narrowing in the Two party preferred. More conclusive evidence of bad behavior and women My best mate Alan stuffs up big time and I've got form with the lady folk.

Solution: Appear on brekkie TV,,strut out the missus and accidentally appear like a sullen schoolie before the Headmaster with a well constructed ' nice guy' segment in his defense... Because those nasty lefties are ganging up on me, sniff.. weep...sob.

Outcome: Look even more transparent and just a sook as a result. What a pathetic effort!

Jesmond:

05 Oct 2012 5:23:39pm

I thought the footage of Abbott on Channel 9 with his wife was hilarious. He was sitting right behind her with an incredibly aggressive look on his face. She was saying how he values women and his body language was saying the opposite. She would have had more credibility if she had done it without him looking over her shoulder.

Bazza:

05 Oct 2012 5:33:16pm

I think we should all look at where this started and that was that Julia Gilard 'Lied'

Now a lie is decribed in the dictionary as 'a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood'It would be my observation that when Julia Gillard made the statement that there would be no Carbon Pricing she actually believed that would be the case, so not a lie.If after gaining government and in the process having to meet the independants and the Greens objectives this position was untenable then that change of view being unacceptable be argued in that light. But the original statement was not a lie.

lionel hurst:

05 Oct 2012 5:57:35pm

Instead of the government's puppet, Finkelstein, advocating loss of freedom of speech by the media and indirectly, by the public, it would be saner if the government considered legislation clearly defining just what freedom of speech really means. A democracy clearly cannot allow freedom of actions, otherwise violence, robbery and other crimes would be acceptable and legal. Freedom does not mean the legal ability to take away another person's rights in any shape or form, so why should freedom of speech confer such ability? Freedom of speech , including opinions should be based on facts, not venom, hatred of lies. Sadly, people like Jones deliberately misuse their public position to gain notoriety for themselves, irrespective of the hurtful effect on others. This is so irresponsible that it should be treated in the same manner as assault, and the offender arrested and tried in court.